Ch.1
1. Mahlon and Kilion: the names MAY suggest that they weren't the healthiest of children. Is that why Elimelech & Naomi left Bethlehem for "the fields of Moab"? They suspected/knew their sons would not survive the famine?
2. 1 Sam.22v3-4 (thanks to Wikipedia for this reference). This strongly suggests that David had a family cx. with Moab!
3. Could this family cx. account for his later war with Moab eg the King he was related to was "replaced" by a usurper of some sort and David perhaps went to war to restore family honour??? This is v speculative indeed on my part! Not least as David seemed to be at war with all his neighbours, whether he wanted to be or not. It almost reads like an annual "sports outing" cf 2 Sam.11v1 "In the spring of the year, the time when kings go out to battle ...". It was a rough neighbourhood!
4. "Names in Ruth: As etymological studies have shown, the six personal names in Ruth are plausible, and some occur in extrabiblical sources (Hubbard 1988,Ruth (NICOT series), 88-90; Campbell 1975, 52-56)." "NBBC, Ruth/Song of Songs/Esther: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary )" by Sarah B. C. Derck, Joseph Coleson, Elaine Bernius, 2020.
This would imply that the book dates back to the time of Judges.
Ch.2
1. Naomi
a) The chapter's first and last words are Naomi and mother-in-law ie Naomi bookends this chapter.
b) Is Naomi "depressed", PTSD, ...? She's finally back at home but, in one sense, nothing's changed. A window without her son's. Life looks bleak I suspect, especially after the warm welcome has died down.
Decker refers to her being despairing (op. cit,p.60) & despondent (op. cit, p.66+79).
She provides no help to Ruth in finding a safe place to glean. She doesn't go with her (which would I think be normal - it's dangerous out there, esp. for a foreigner, and particularly for a Moabite), doesn't even offer some advice eg we have family plots here, she just "whatevers" her (v2).
Ostriker describes her as alienated. ("The Book of Ruth+the love of the land(Ostriker,2002,BibInt,p.347)”.
2. Boaz:
Decker suggests he's probably an older man (but not old!), which we learn in 3:10. He may have been a soldier in early life, it is the time of Judges, but now has returned to civi-street.
"More interesting is man of standing, which translates the Hebrew ˒îš gibbôr ḥayil (lit. mighty man of valor). This common term is usually rendered “mighty warrior,” connoting military prowess (Judg 11:1; 2 Kgs 5:1; 1 Chr 28:1). ... In a clever pun on the other occurrence of his name, Fewell and Gunn call Boaz “a pillar of the community” (1990, 40). ... It may even explain why Boaz appears unmarried: he was not home enough to establish a family during his early adulthood in an era of chaos and famine."(Derck,2020,p.65).
"... ο δε and the ανήρ man δυνατός was mighty ισχύϊ in strength εκ of της the συγγενείας kin Ελιμέλεχ of Elimelech..." Septuagint, 2:1.
Valor: Both Boaz and Ruth are called "a person of valor". "What is suggested is leadership, worth, courage. " (Ostriker,2002,p.349).
[As an aside, this may explain why he's happy to guard the harvest alone (3:14b). He's possibly armed and trained in wielding weapons?]
3. A Goʾel: often said to be:
- kinsman-redeemer"(EXB(Expanded Bible),LSB(Legacy Standard),OJB(Orthodox Jewish),TLV);
- guardian-redeemer (NIV);
- plain old "nearest kin"(NRSVue, albeit with a note: "one with the right to redeem");
- family redeemers(sic) (NLT);
- Guardian (NET, tho' w' an extensive note).
Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ruth%202%3A20
Go'el is also "... the familiar epithet for God, goel Yisrael, the redeemer of Israel.” (Ostriker,2002,p.351-2)
4. Intertextuality: there are constant echoes and interplay of earlier, mainly women's, histories in the Bible eg:
- Ostriker cites Job (Ostriker,2002,p.348), Abraham (Gen.12:1) (op.cit,p.349),
- Derck cites (among many passages) ...
- "Texts in Dialogue With Texts_Intertextuality in the Ruth+Tamar Narratives(van Wolde,1997,BibInt)"
- Gen. 38:1-2 and Ruth 1:1-2 (p.8-9)
- "both women are non-Judahite, but act according to Judahite or Israelite law. Ruth and Tamar start to play their part in this pro-creative process only after their Judahite husbands die."(p.1(0)
5. Timeline (2:23):
They arrive at the start of the harvest (late-March).
- Barley harvest: late-March - end-April
- Wheat harvest:May
"Barley was harvested from late March through late April, wheat from late April to late May (O. Borowski, Agriculture in Ancient Israel, 88, 91)." (NET, sn on ”harvest", 2:23)
"She gleaned through two harvests, approximately seven weeks of backbreaking labor from late April through early June. If she maintained her rate of yield from the first day, she likely gathered enough to see them through the year. Her tenacity was serving them well." (Derck,2020,p.82)
For ~2 months (2:21) Ruth is out there and what's Boaz doing? Well that's ch.3!
6. Foreign/Alien & vulnerable
a) Rights of "foreigners"(NLT)/"aliens"(NRSVue)/ "resident foreigner"(NET)/Hebrew ger in Israel:
- Ex.12:49: "there shall be one law for the native-born and for the alien who resides among you."
- Ex.22:21:“You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. 22You shall not abuse any widow or orphan."
- Ex.23:9:“You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt."
- Lv.19:9-10:“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10You shall not strip your vineyard bare or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the LORD your God." Also Lv.23:22, in case you missed it the first time!
- Lv.19:33-34“When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. 34The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the native-born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."
- Num.15:14-16:"An alien who lives with you or who takes up permanent residence among you and wishes to offer an offering by fire, a pleasing odor to the LORD, shall do as you do. 15As for the assembly, there shall be for both you and the resident alien a single statute, a perpetual statute throughout your generations; you and the alien shall be alike before the LORD. 16You and the alien who resides with you shall have the same law and the same ordinance."
- Dt.1:16-17:"I charged your judges at that time: ‘Give the members of your community a fair hearing and judge rightly between one person and another, whether kin or resident alien. 17You must not be partial in judging: hear out the small and the great alike; you shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s."
- Dt.14:28-29:“Every third year you shall bring out the full tithe of your produce for that year and store it within your towns; 29the Levites, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you, as well as the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, may come and eat their fill so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work that you undertake."
- Dt.24:19-21“When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all your undertakings. 20When you beat your olive trees, do not strip what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow. 21“When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow."
This is NOT even close to being a comprehensive list!
BTW, all quotes above are from NRSVue.
b) Vulnerable
All this thus makes it more shocking that Ruth, a foreigner, was liable to unwanted, putting it mildly and at best, sexual "advances", more probably molestation or outright rape. Boaz lays the law(sic!!) down here. Is he acting as the Go'el here? Certainly looks like it. Ruth has no brothers/uncles/father to "police" her safety.
Hence(?) Boaz's initial question “To whom does this young woman belong?”2:5. It sounds rather shocking in our modern ears but without anyone to act as her backup security. Given the above what else might we glean(sic) about Boaz?
"Instead, the concerns and context of Ruth 2.8-9 make it much more probable that the ‘grace’ which Ruth claims to have found in Boaz’s ‘eyes’ should be interpreted as precisely his protection from potentially fatal sexual violence in the fields of Bethlehem."Instead, the concerns and con-text of Ruth 2.8-9 make it much more probable that the ‘grace’ which Ruth claims to have found in Boaz’s ‘eyes’ should be interpreted as precisely his protection from potentially fatal sexual violence in the fields of Bethlehem. (Ruth in the Days of the Judges_Women, Foreignness+Violence (Shepherd, 2018, BibInt p.541)
"What we have suggested here is that while Ruth and other female foreign workers may well be invisible to other women in the dominant culture, they are often conspicuously and dangerously visible to men within the dominant culture – some of whom give them good reasons for wishing that they were not." (Ruth in the Days of the Judges_Women,Foreignness+Violence (Shepherd, 2018, BibInt p.543)
Ch.3
3:3 In Hebrew (3:3) "Ruth was to wash and perfume her body, then wrap in a cloak. With most commentators, we read the MT’s notation of the singular noun śimlâ (“cloak,” “garment”), not the plural (clothes)." (Derck,2020,p.88). I note the
- Polish translation simply says "płaszcz".
- The French (SG21) has "remets tes habits" (pl.) but PDV has "mets ta belle robe" (sg. but colloquially "put on your beautiful dress" not necessarily sg?).
- LXX: "τον ιματισμόν" your clothes.
"As Sakenfeld says ..., “Never is there any indication of the consummation of sexual relations, yet the choice of words keeps that possibility always before the reader. The storyteller creates an atmosphere of ambiguity and mystery” (1999, 54). To insist either way is to deny the storyteller his or her own creation."(Derck,2020,p.91).
3:7 Was Boaz drunk? Is the Bible suggesting a drunken romp? "Honi soit qui mal y pense". Rather are we exposing ourselves in the way we interpret this text?
Was it wrong of them if they did in the context of their day? Would this be wrong today for engaged couples? Certainly it wasn't considered so from 14th century Western Europe & America until the 19th century. In America the practice was called "bundling" (MacCulloch, 2003, Reformation, p.620).
3:9 "Kānāp, and even the whole idiom to spread a kānāp, occur in other passages where a marriage relationship is in view (Deut 22:30 [23:1 HB]; 27:20; Ezek 16:8)." (Derck,2020,p.95). Ruth is asking Boaz to marry her! Boaz gables a bit and then says "yes"! (3:11b).
3:11c Boaz calls Ruth a "ʾēšet ḥayil, a woman of valor". The same phrase used to describe Boaz in 2:1 "îš gibbôr ḥayil (lit. mighty man of valor)." Love and war!
3:17 These are Ruth’s last words in the book. She is betrothed and now "belongs" (2:5) to Boaz. She is part of his family and is protected and cared for by them.
Ch.4
The "silence" of Naomi and Ruth, tho' not women's "chorus" (v14-17) or Naomi as a player here still (v16). Also Naomi and Ruth are explicitly named ~10 times in this chapter. Indeed "As Coxon observed, there was an “obvious comparison . . . between the loquacious complaining Naomi of ch. 1 and the serenely silent and satisfied Naomi of ch. 4” (1989, 30)." (quoted in Derck,2020,p.105)
4:1
1. And it happens (implicitly?) that "So‑and-so" comes by the gate. Just as Ruth (explicitly) "happened" (2:3) on Boaz's field. Of course here it may be that this was the only way in/out of Bethlehem and/or Boaz knew the man's habits etc. However Derck takes the same line (op. cit.,p.106).
However note v2 where only after "So‑and-so" appears does Boaz gather the 10 elders he needs as formal witnesses. So perhaps not quite so sure without a a bit of "behind the scenes" management from God?
2. "Come here, what’s-your-name, and sit down." (NET) or “Come over and sit down here, So‑and-so!” (JSB).
NET tn The Hebrew idiom, פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי (peloni ʾalmoni) literally means “such and such” or “a certain one” (BDB 811-12 s.v. פְּלֹנִי. The idiom is used when one wishes to be ambiguous (1 Sam 21:3; 2 Kgs 6:8). Certainly Boaz would have known his relative’s name, especially in such a small village, and would have uttered his actual name. However the narrator refuses to record his name in a form of poetic justice because he refused to preserve Mahlon’s “name” (lineage) by marrying his widow (see 4:5, 9-10). This close relative, who is a literary foil for Boaz, refuses to fulfill the role of family guardian and is relegated to anonymity in a chapter otherwise filled with names and in contrast to Boaz’s prominence. Because the actual name of this relative is not recorded, the translation of this expression is difficult. Contemporary English style expects either a name or title, but the purpose of the expression is to remove his name. This is usually supplied in modern translations: “friend” (NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT), “so-and-so” (JPS, NJPS). Perhaps “Mr. So-And-So!” or “Mr. No-Name!” makes the point.
4:2 Boaz is definitely setting a "brisk pace" here. Is poor "So‑and-so" being rushed? Is Boaz using "pressure tactics" here to get the decision he wants before "So‑and-so" has time to really reflect on the situation and/or discover that B&R are betrothed?
On the other hand N&R have been back for ~3 months. It's hardly news and he's had time to act if he wanted to. Does it actually reflect badly on "So‑and-so" that he hasn't acted already? Had he already "done the maths" here ie one(?) field vs 2 extra mouths to feed and decided it wasn't worth it? I don't think so as he has to be reminded of his obligations (v5) as well as just the financial benefit here! Does it suggest that he's actively ignored the situation and left N&E to fend for themselves rather than put himself out both emotionally and financially?
Derck asks "How could Naomi sell a field bound for a male heir?" (p.107). As she says "We cannot solve this puzzle any more than others have, and must accept Boaz’s words at face value, observing that he proceeded on a basis that does not match what we know of Israelite law but was acceptable to Bethlehem’s elders." (p.107)
However:
1. women blood-relatives can inherit property. See "The Daughters of Zelophehad" in Numbers 27.
2. There's been a famine, in which presumably people died more frequently than usual.
3. Bethlehem is a small place, perhaps 500 people, mostly kids, max??
Given these three facts I can posit a plausible scenario, albeit without any scriptural warrant! Basically Naomi & Elimelech were related, albeit at the cousin level or greater (permitted by OT law eg Lev.18:6-18). She is the closest surviving relative, not by marriage please note, but by blood and so has inherited the field.
As a side note, given all this and neglecting the obvious (ie Ruth's an highly intelligent and v decent human being - things a more mature man might appreciate more), genetically speaking, Ruth is pure gold in this inbred (no insult intended!) group.
4:4b The Septuagint translates part of Boaz's speech as:
ει If
αγχιστεύεις you are a acting as next of kin,
αγχίστευε [then] act as next of kin!
ει δε μη But if not
αγχιστεύεις acting as next of kin,
ανάγγειλόν announce it
μοι to me!
Boaz's urgency is palpable here! The English translations smooth it out to my ears at least.
4:5 Derck suggests, really v interestingly, that ”...Boaz was announcing his marriage to Ruth, and intention to establish that marriage as a levirate one. If a child resulted from the union (not a guaranteed outcome between an older man and potentially barren woman), Boaz would designate him as heir to Mahlon, thus providing someone to inherit the field.” So this child would then get the field back at the next Jubilee. Hence Mr so and so's backing out.
