This article was originally written as an essay as part of Old Testament Studies for my MA.

Scholars have suggested a number of motives behind the writing of Ruth. [1] Whatever the merits of the different proposals, it seems to me that Ruth was just as likely to have been written as a bawdy adult comedy/pantomime. It could perhaps be subtitled ‘Carry On Gleaning’. It might have been the ‘Up Pompeii’ of ancient Israel. However, within the clever plot [2] and camouflaged by sexual innuendo, there are robust and intriguing characters that the reader can identify with. [3]

It was ‘Harvest Festival’ (‘Pentecost’ or the ‘Feast of Weeks’) [4] everyone had been drinking – the whole village was ‘happy’. Dinner had been followed by all the usual speeches. Old jokes had been told (and retold), particularly those about sheaves, grain and seed – full of the usual sexual innuendo. [5] Village dignitaries had pompously promised gifts to the poor, some had made commitments that they would rue, come the morning.

It was now time for the reading of Ruth; or rather, for the second, ‘real’ reading. Ruth was read in the morning in the Synagogue a beautiful story of loyalty, conversion, hope [6] and of the ancestry of King David, or so it always seemed in the morning light. In the Synagogue the village elders had pontificated about the importance of caring for the stranger, [7] about the possibility of redemption for the worst of aliens (even Moabites); [8] and about duty and honour They talked of Boaz, fulfilling his responsibilities; [9] of Naomi the godly mother-in-law (struggling to accept the consequences of her husband’s folly); [10] of a beautiful, modest, dutiful, Moabite daughter-in-law. [11] Characters full of loyalty and faithfulness. [12] A sickly-sweet story – the ‘Mills and Boon’ of the five scrolls. [13]

I don’t think Ruth was written for the Synagogue. Those pious interpreters probably missed the point. [14] It was written for the evening, for the party! It was, first and foremost (and still is), a ripping good yam! A really well written ‘comedy’, [15] full of innuendo, with real 3-D but ambiguous characters. Characters that you could easily read yourself into. You couldn’t but be drawn into the plot – especially if you’d had a little too much to drink!

The evening reading of Ruth was the highlight of the Festival!

So, how did people engage with the main characters?

Naomi

Naomi enters the story through pain, suffering and complaint, [16] but her experience and response are full of ambiguity. Was she sinned against or sinning, party to the decision to go to Moab, or just following her husband, being punished for her husband’s sin, or the innocent victim? [17] Does she enter the story engulfed in bitterness trapped in her own prejudices, and remain so? Or is she, perhaps a model for working through grief? The narrative does not answer these questions directly – this is part of its strength. [18] No one is excluded, ancient/modem readers are invited into the plot, invited to see themselves in Naomi. Her experience and expression of suffering parallel theirs – they can feel their own pain worked out in Naomi’s character.

It would be natural also to question Yahweh’s role? Given prevailing theology, early audiences would see ’cause and effect Elimelech flirted with ‘Moabite foreigners’ and reaped the reward. [19] It seemed that his sons did too ‘sins of the fathers’ and all that! [20] How many generations would reap the rewards of Elimelech’s sin? None! Unless that is, Naomi, or one of her daughters-in-law, remarried! If that happened, would the curse remain?

Given all the possibilities, what is going on in Naomi’s mind? Perhaps this:

“Elimelech’s decision was wrong. I knew that right from the start. Moab, of all places! Whatever possessed him?”

“It’s an evil place’, I warned him. ‘Yahweh warned us against Moabites’, [21] I said. And I was right!”

“Losing Elimelech left me all alone in Moab! I couldn’t face the shame of returning to Bethlehem. I just had my two boys – I focused on them, but couldn’t really forgive Elimelech. I worked hard to secure wives for the boys and began to hope for grandchildren.”

“In ten years there were no children. How I wished that I’d chosen better wives. I’d decided to suggest that the boys should look for second wives, when both boys upped and died – Yahweh’s curse, [22] I’m sure.”

“Elimelech, what have you done? I am all alone, I have no one! I’m left with two barren Moabite women to care for! What is to become of me? I’d be better off dead.”

Naomi identifies herself with the dead rather than the living. [23] Her depression is self-reinforcing. She wants nothing more to do with these Moabite women they embody her distress. [24] The dialogue in Ruth 1.8-17 might suggest concern for her daughters-in-law [25] but actually depicts her as bitter and self-focused. Her subsequent silence on the journey speaks volumes. [26] Her ‘poem’ in Ruth 1:20-21 is melodramatic. [27] Her failure to mention Ruth reflects ambivalence toward Ruth: [28] “This Moabite woman is an embarrassment, she highlights my folly and disgrace, I do not want her here.” Yet Ruth is all Naomi has.

Naorm remains self-focused throughout the story, showing no concern for Ruth as she leaves for the fields to glean. [29] Apparently concerned for Ruth’s future happiness, she is, however, Gontent to risk Ruth’s honour at night at the threshing floor. [30] Her silence once she has her grandchild and the women extol Ruth’s virtue, is telling: “Calamity from the god of the patriarchy she has been quick to proclaim. Generosity from a wealthy man she is quick to praise. Grace from a foreign woman is perhaps beyond her comprehension. Little wonder that to the message, ‘your daughter-in-law who loves you is better than seven sons’, her response is silence“. [31]

Boaz

If Naomi is bitter and twisted, Boaz is ‘a pillar of the community’. [32] He greets everyone according to the proper religious formulae; [33] he speaks in a ponderous/pompous form of Hebrew; [34] his initial dealings with Ruth are very correct. [35] The listeners will recognise, in him, the leading men in their village – very proper, yet in the context of this yarn, possible to ridicule.

His pomposity is the appropriate foil for his growing infatuation with Ruth. [36] We cannot be sure what about Ruth attracts him – possibly beauty. [37] However, a slightly plump, country-girl Ruth might best fit a ‘Carry-On’ story. If this was a play we would see an exaggerated turning of the head as Boaz first notices Ruth, we might hear a quiet exclamation of delight before he draws himself together to ask his overseer, “Whose maiden is this?” [38] Boaz behaves properly toward Ruth, but the audience know that he’s hooked.

Boaz and Ruth’s conversations are laced with double meaning. He talks of ‘staying close’ [39] She talks of him ‘noticing’ [40] her, a foreigner. [41] He covers his confusion with a wordy statement but can’t quite avoid sexual overtones. [42] Her reply gives room for that little giggle, or raised eyebrow, that might accompany one meaning of ‘your maidservant’. [43] Boaz is hooked, his mild generosity of the morning gives way to profligacy [44] everyone listening ‘knows’ [45] where things are leading.

The tension, for the audience, is enhanced by the reputation of Moabite women. [46] Boaz is entering dangerous territory – what will happen to him?

We next meet Boaz at night on the threshing floor, in a slightly pickled state, asleep after celebrating the end of the harvest. Any Israelite would know that the fields were a dangerous place for an eligible man to sleep at night. Boaz’s alarm when woken was understandable – the Lilith, the demon maiden, could have been about, searching for a mate! [47]

The audience is prepared for sexual encounter by the activities of Naomi and Ruth. They are clearly preparing for marriage. [48] Sexual innuendo continues with references to ‘feet’ [49] and ‘lying down’. [50] Boaz wakes, perhaps because of the cold on his legs, in his alarm he is undone/uncovered in more ways than one. Perhaps Ruth wakes him and he sees her uncovered before him. [51] Which is it? The audience is left to wonder.

What does happen between Boaz and Ruth that night? We can’t be sure. We’re not sure that Boaz is really sure what happened. [52] – there was plenty of drink around that evening! We can, however, be sure that the ambiguity is intended by the author. [53] The audience cannot but see the similarities with other biblical stories. [54] They’re left to read almost anything into the situation.

Ruth seems to offer herself to him – Boaz recognises the sexual connotation in her reference to his cloak, but also that she is challenging him to fulfil his earlier blessing. [55] The audience is torn between titillation, at the possibility of sexual gratification, and jeering at pompous Boaz for being trapped by two women, [56] one a Moabite woman!

The latter part of the story has Boaz cunningly manoeuvring the anonymous relative [57] into a corner from which there is no retreat. He manages to buy [58] a Moabite woman without losing the respect of the community – he is the honourable redeemer. [59] In the story he’s definitely the winner. [60] The audience is left considering the motives of the village elders who sit at the gate of their village. What is happening as they make decisions? Is everything just as it appears, or are these ‘pompous’, ostensibly magnanimous/gracious, elders only really working for their own ends? Could that also be true of the elders teaching in the Synagogue?

Ruth

Ruth, a Moabite! The audience titters when she first enters the narrative. Moabites, and particularly their women are not good news. [61] The first possible signs of Ruth and Orpah’s loyalty [62] surprise them. Orpah’s decision to leave Naomi draws the audience’s boos: “We told you so, Moabites are no good! Go on Ruth, leave too!”

They hear her profession of loyalty [63] – its difficult to believe – they can’t credit good motives to Ruth: “She’s after something. Let’s wait and see!” Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi [64] continues to perplex the audience throughout the story. They are surprised at her willingness to glean in the field, but quickly they suspect that she will seduce the young Israelite men. Eventually they see her tangled with Boaz in a complicated romance, perhaps this is where she will show her true Moabite colours. The sly comparison with the Lilith tickles their fancy, [65] and they certainly have some fun at Boaz and Ruth’s expense.

But which side should they take? They have to decide. Prejudice says Ruth is evil, to be avonded Yet Rath shows faithfulness and loyalty, to Naomi and Boaz. [66] Yes, the author has allowed some titillation, but did anything wrong actually happen at the threshing Door Re can they believe that a Moabite woman is good? Yet if they don’t what does that say at the ancestry of their great King, David?

What does Ruth herself feel? Her husband is dead. Hier mother-in-lapse doesn’t want to know her. Chances of another husband in Moab are low. Who would want to marry second-hand goods? Israelite second-hand goods at that? [67]

Are Ruth’s motives as pure as they first seem? She has little choice. She cannot bring herself to follow Orpah who walks out of the narrative, probably into poverty and spinsterhood. [68] Ruth knows she’s committed to Naomi, no matter how bitter the wild woman is. Loyalty is her only option and she goes for it.

The journey to Bethlehem is hard – Naomi ignores her. [69] The entry into Bethlehem, harder still – for everyone ignores her. [70] She is determined not to be defeated. It is harvest-time and she heads for the fields – she’s heard Naomi mumbling about Boaz. [71] and determines that she will find his area of the field, she’s surprised to find it at the first attempt. This will be her way of helping both herself and Naomi. Her encounter with Boaz goes well – she can see that he’s interested in her. He’s clearly a respected man a bit ponderous/pompous but widowed Moabite women in Israel cannot be too choosy, can they?

Her triumph is hard to hide when see returns home – she tells Naomi of her work in the field, holding the name of Boaz for the last final flourish of her statement [72] (incidentally, holding the audience’s interest – they know something Naomi doesn’t know). She plays a small word game with Naomi, about men/maid-servants [73] which gently reminds Naomi of her earlier lack of care for Ruth.

Seven weeks she works in Boaz’s fields – she becomes quite fond of the old blighter. She isn’t surprised when Naomi suggests that marriage should be pursued, she listens to the plan and works out her own variation of it. [74] The risk is great, Boaz may just use her. In the event she has him trapped, just as on the following day he would trap the anonymous relative.

Conclusion

This is a very clever story, one that draws the audience in through an excellent plot and bawdy humour. The characters and the message contained within the story are such that the original audience could not have been left unmoved or challenged. It really does rate as “a ‘good yam’, superbly written”. [75] We can see God’s providence at work – and that seems to be the point. The story asks whether we can really see God at work in the lives of ordinary people. [76] The answer it provides is ‘Yes!’.

Notes

1. 1:p25ff; 2:p259; 7:p201.
2. A well devised plot – intrigue draws us into each scene. A classic pattern of exposition/conflict/resolution (12:102ff). This “story has power to draw us in almost against our will” (11:p63f). Part of its allure is its honest embrace of pain (6:p25ff) see also note 15 below.
3. The interaction of the narrator and characters (12:p68-71) and the quality/depth of the characters (19:p37-40; 20:p71ff) is what makes this story.
4. 17:p78; 21:p12f
5. 8:p126 (note 29).
6. 5:p146-165; 7:p197; 20:p71ff
7. cf. Exodus 23:9; Numbers p9:14.
8. Ruth 1:16f: cf. 15:p37,42 – re: conversion.
9. 17:p102.
10. 15:p36f.
11. 5:p148-161.
12. Hesed, (חֶסֶד) Ruth 1:8 occurs frequently in the book, and carries the idea of covenant loyalty, cf. 5:p148; 7:p206; 21 p23.
13. 21:p12 cf. 17:(whole book)
14. Although they would receive Rabbinic support (cf. 5:p148-165, 15:p37-47)
15. ‘Comedy’ is also the literary term for ‘the story of the happy ending’ (19:p82; cf. 20:p72) – Ruth fits this traditional pattern.
16. 17.p98
17. 7 p208; 8:p72; 10:p197; 15 p36f.
18. Our response to narrative gaps affects our understanding of the story cf. 4 p12: 22:p20-25.
19. 15:p36f
20. cf. e.g., Exodus 20:5; 34:7.
21. cf. Deuteronomy .23:3.
22. Ruth 1:13: cf. 21:p27; Exodus 20:5; 34:7.
23. 8:p70f cf. 1:p46.
24. 15:p 34.
25. 15:p35f
26. Ruth 1:18, 8:p74.
27. 15:p34f
28. Ruth 1:19-22, 8:p74f.
29. Ruth 2:2, 8:p76f
30. Ruth 3:2-4, 15:p36.
31. 8:p82; Ruth 4:14-16.
32. ba’an (בעז) was one of the columns in the temple the name could mean ‘quickness/strength’ (1:p55), ‘powerful/potent’ (3:p51); he is introduced as a man of substance/worth/wealth (1:p56; 8:p83).
33. Ruth 2:4, 10:p205
34. Ruth 2:8-9,11-12; 15:p43.
35. Ruth 2:8-9, 15:p43.
36. 8:p85: 15:p44
37. 5:p161-163
38. Ruth 2:5 (RSV) – he is already thinking, ‘Who does she belong to?”
39. Ruth 2:8, of. Ruth 1:14 – root (דָבֵק) – cleave – cf. Genesis 2:24; 34:3.
40. Ruth 2:10 cf. 21:p51
41. Ruth 2:10: Ruth is a נָכְרִיָה – a ‘temporary foreigner’ – emphasising her alienness (14:p147), or ‘one not recognised as part of the family (21:p51).
42. Ruth 2:12: of. Ezekiel 16:8 – which is using sexual imagery.
43. Ruth 2:13 – שִׁפְחַת – may be ‘concubine’, but Ruth 3:9 – אַמַתִי  – does mean ‘concubine’ (21:p53).
44. Ruth 2:14-17, 21:p54
45. Ruth 3:4 – ידע – there is double meaning when this word is used (7:p218).
46. Numbers 25:1-5; cf. Genesis 19:31-38.
47. 21:p76-80
48. Ruth 3:3; cf. Ezek. 16:8-13.
49. Ruth 3:4,7,14; בול  – feet/legs/genitals (7:p217; 9:p156,193, 18:p37f, 21:p70)
50. Ruth 3:4,7,8,13,14 root שָׁכַב – ‘to lie with/down’ (7:p218; 18:p39).
51. Ruth 3:4 – נליח – the Hebrew works both ways.
52. 8:p87.
53. 2:p272; 7:p217; 15:p46f
54. Ruth 4:11f; Jacob/Leah/Rachel – Genesis 29; Judah/Tamar – Genesis 38 (3:p62ff, 8:p72f, 9:p104f).
55. Ruth 3:9 cf. Ruth 2:12.
56. 7:p212; 10:p207
57. The Hebrew (בְּלֹנִי אַלְמני) – 7:p222f, 8:p91; 15:p45 and specifically p127-129
58. Ruth 4:10: cf. 13:p140, note 140 – they would not question the ‘purchase’, just her Moabite status!
59. 2:p275f, 15:p45f; 21:p107ff, 115ff, 136ff.
60. 8:p91f
61. Genesis 19:31-38, Numbers 25:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:3f, Judges 3:12-30, 1:p33; 8:p69f, 15:p38.
62. Ruth 1:6,10.
63. Ruth 1:16f
64. 16:p97
65. Ruth 3:8-9 cf. 21:p76-80.
66. Hesed, (חֶסֶד)
67. 8:p97f.
68. 8:p97f.
69. Ruth 1:18; 8:p74.
70. Ruth 1:19-21.
71. Ruth 2:1.
72. Ruth 2:19.
73. Ruth 2:21f; 8:p98f; 21:p58.
74. Ruth 3:9 cf. Ruth 3:4; 8:p99ff; 17:p101f.
75. 4:p9: quoting Goitein; Iyyunim ba-miqra; Yavneh, Tel Aviv, 1957; p49.
76. 2:p280; 7:p197.
77. https://emilysmucker.com/2020/04/27/five-actual-romantic-lessons-from-the-life-of-ruth, accessed on 14th October 2024.
78. https://www.radstockwestfieldmethodists.co.uk/book-of-ruth-chapter-3-.php, accessed on 14th October 2024.
79. https://www.bookbaker.com/ko/v/Genesis-A-Visual-Exploration-Ruth-and-Naomi/8a99ff0b-37ca-4dc0-8e51-09a03b1a14e3/13, accessed on 14th October 2024.

References

1. David Atkinson; The Message of Ruth;, IVP, Leicester, 1983,
2. A. Graeme Auld; Joshua, Judges and Ruth; St. Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1984
3. Mieke Bal; Heroism and Proper Names, or the Fruits of Analogy; in Atalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press and Ruth St. Andrew Press, Sheffield, 1993.
4. Athalaya Brenner; Introduction; in Atalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press and Ruth St. Andrew Press, Sheffield, 1993.
5. Leila Leah Bronner; A Thematic Approach to Ruth in Rabbinic Literature; in Athalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1993.
6. Walter Bruggemann; Old Testament Theology: in Patrick D. Miller ed., Fortress Press, Philadelphia. 1992.
7. John Craghan, C.SS.R.; Esther, Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth; Michael Glazier, Wilmington, Delaware, 1982.
8. Danna Nolan Fewell & David M. Gunn; Compromising Redemption; Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1990.
9. Danna Nolan Fewell & David M. Gunn; Gender, Power, and Promise; Abingdon Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1993.
10. John Goldingay; After Eating the Apricot; Paternoster, Carlisle, 1996.
11. John Goldingay: Models for Scripture; Paternoster, Carlisle, 1987.
12. David M. Gunn & Danna Nolan Fewell; Narrative in the Hebrew Bible; Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.
13. Paula S. Hiebert; Whence Shall Help Come to Me: The Biblical Widow; in Peggy L. Day (ed.); Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel; Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1989.
14. Jonathan Magonet; A Rabbi’s Bible; SCM, London, 1991.
15. Jonathan Magonet; Bible Lives; SCM, London, 1992.
16. John H. Otwell; And Sarah Laughed; Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1977.
17. Eugene H. Peterson; Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work; Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992
18. Ilona Rashkow, Ruth: The Discourse of Power and the Power of Discourse; in Athalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1993.
19. Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible As Literature; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984.
20. Leland Ryken; The Literature of the Bible; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974.
21. Jack M. Sasson; Ruth; 2nd Ed., reprinted, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1995.
22. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Book of Ruth; in Athalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1993.