The Book of Ruth: Part 2
The Bible Reading Itself!
This is the second and final part of our ‘bumper issue’ on the book of Ruth - I won’t get into the habit of sending more than two newsletters a month, but Ruth is such a special text it deserves special treatment!
Ruth and Inner-Biblical Interpretation
Last week we looked together at some of the more obscure aspects of the book of Ruth to help to broaden our picture of the text. Looking again at things we’ve read before but thought little of is a really helpful way of deepening our understanding of Biblical texts. Another important tool is looking at what relationships a text might have with others in the Bible. This is called ‘inner-biblical’ interpretation, or sometimes ‘intertextuality’.1 The book of Ruth has lots of these relationships and they are very helpful for our understanding of the book!
Hayez, A Woman as Ruth: 1850 (Wikimedia.commons)
Ruth and the rest of the Bible
One of the best things you can do in order to understand the book of Ruth more is to read other biblical texts. Specifically, Ezra and Deuteronomy.
Although there are a lot of different things at play in the book of Ruth, one of the most significant concerns of the book is intermarriage. This is the word used to describe what happens when an Israelite person marries someone from outside of Israel. This is a particular issue in relation to legal texts like Deuteronomy 7 and Exodus 34 which list nations that the Israelites were not permitted to marry.
If you read the book of Ruth, it is unlikely to escape you that she is a Moabite. The text tells us again and again (1:22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10). The sticking point here is Ruth’s Moabite heritage poses a problem in relation to these intermarriage laws.
Although the Moabites are not mentioned in these lists, the emphasis is that an Israelite should marry one of their kin. Further to this, the Moabites are not looked upon favorably by other laws which ban them from entering the assembly of Israel (Deut 23:3). All of this indicates that Boaz’s marriage to Ruth is problematic.
This is emphasized even further by the events of Ezra 9 in which it is discovered that the Israelites have been taking foreign wives. This list does mention the Moabites, and in response to this news v3 says that Ezra ‘tore [his] garment and [his] mantle, and pulled hair from [his] head and beard, and sat appalled. Clearly, intermarraige is a serious issue for Ezra!
So what does this mean for Ruth? When read in relation to Ezra, we see two different sides to an ongoing debate about marrying foreigners. It is likely that these texts were written at similar times and from that we can glean that intermarraige was a live issue after the exile.2 This is a great example of the way in which we often find multiple voices within the Hebrew bible addressing (or sometimes arguing over) the same issue.
Gleaners, as in Deuteronomy 24:19–21, watercolor by James Tissot
Ruth and Deuteronomy
The other significant relationship that we can see in the book of Ruth is with the laws of Deuteronomy. The gleaning that Ruth does in chapter 2 seems to be informed by Deuteronomy 24. This legal texts instructs that the edges of a field should be left unharvested so that the ‘widow, orphan and alien’ (and sometimes also the levite) can feed themselves. This was a temporary solution, however, and only viable for the time of the harvest which goes some way to explain why it was so important that Ruth got married. Without a husband to provide for her, both she and Naomi might have starved.
Ruth’s relationship with Deuteronomy does not end there! In Deut 25 we find laws which are concerned with what is usually called ‘levirate marriage’. This refers to the custom by which if a man dies before his wife has given birth to a son, the duty falls to his brother to produce an heir with her. Here, the wife is called ‘אֵֽשֶׁת־הַמֵּת֙’ “eshet ha’mot” which literally means ‘wife of the dead’.
This phrase is found in only one more place in the Bible - Ruth 4:5. Here, Ruth is referred to using this phrase. This emphasises the strong relationship between the two texts.
It must be said, though, that the process that is prescribed by the law in Deut 25 is not quite that which plays out in Ruth. It is interesting to read these two texts in parallel and play ‘spot the difference’. This shows us something important about the flexibility with which law was applied in narrative contexts… But more on that another day!
For these reasons and more, the book of Ruth highlights the importance of dialogue between different texts. So when one text reminds you of something you read elsewhere, it’s always good to look into that and ask how the texts might be in dialogue with oneanother.
A key text for this is Michael Fishbane’s ‘Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel’
One of the reasons a post-exilic date for Ruth makes sense is precisely because of concner about this issue. When the people returned to the land after the exile, they found that those who had been left behind were married to non-Israelites according to Ezra. This would have thrown up all sorts of issues about community coherence and identity. For those who wanted to preserve the status quo, intermarraige would have been very troubling. Ruth, however, presents it in a positive light, which perhaps suggests it is a polemic in favour of intermarraige. For more on the date of Ruth, and the language which suggests it’s post-exilic, see: Holmstedt, R. D., Ruth: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible (Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2010), p 152; Laffey, A. L., Leonard-Fleckman, M., Ruth (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2017), p iv; skenazi, T., and Frymer-Kemsky, T, Ruth, First edition. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2011), p xvi; Bush, F. W., Ruth, Esther (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1996), p 30