Targuman Rotating Header Image

Bible

More on motivation and characters in the Book of Ruth

I am just reading through an article by my friend Tod Linafelt (“Narrative and Poetic Art in the Book of Ruth,” Interpretation 64:2, 117-129 [2010]). It is a broad and useful reading of Ruth. You may recall from my earlier post I quoted Campbell who said,

It is inherent in biblical thought generally that a person’s actions and words offer a true picture of the person’s character. Hebrew stories do not have characters with hidden motives and concealed agendas, or if they do, the audience is explicitly told about it.

Todd argues something similar, but different (yet does not cite Campbell, is that part of the journal Interpretation‘s style? there are very few notes) that biblical characters motivations are only ever made clear through their actions or words (“As a rule, it is the actions and the dialogue of the characters that leads to the readers’ judgments about them, rather than explicit commentary or moral evaluation on the part of the narrator.” Page 118), but their inner thoughts are never made clear.

To my mind, one of the most important consequences of the convention in biblical narrative of rendering the inner lives of characters opaque is that it tends to leave open, in a literarily fruitful way, the question of character motivation. Page 121.

What I think is the really clever bit is that “literarily fruitful” means that we can play with the text quite freely, albeit in a somewhat restricted manner. We have room to ask, as I did earlier (and rejected our ability to answer with any certainty) why Boaz waited to reach out to Naomi and Ruth. We are free to speculate as to why Ruth went with Naomi back to Bethlehem in the first place. Could it be that Ruth was not being altruistic, but that she had a horrible home that she left when she married into Naomi’s family and that she knew that no matter how bad Bethlehem might be it could not be worse than returning to a family who had rejected her for marrying an Israelite? Tod is quite right, the possibilities are wide open and quite ripe for our creativity.

But just in case some readers have forgotten, my complaint about such approaches is that we often do not show restraint and have a tendency to argue with a certainty that my reading of Boaz’s motivations is the correct one. When in fact, in absence of any guidance from the text, it is impossible to say that there is a “correct” reading of the character’s motivation.

Tod goes on to explore the two passages in Ruth that he (rightly) views as poetry, Ruth 1:16-7 and 1:20-1. In poetry, unlike biblical prose, we find motivations revealed, he argues. See, for example, the expressions of inner feelings and convictions in the psalms and Song of Songs. It is for this reason, according to Tod, that the author uses poetry here since:

the author wants us to know that Ruth’s primary commitment and motivating factor for her actions is her allegiance to Naomi

Except I don’t see “motivation” being revealed in Ruth 1:16-7. This is Tod’s translation.

And Ruth said.
Do not press me to leave you,
to turn back from after you.
For wherever you go, I will go.
And wherever you lodge, I will lodge;
your people shall be my people,
and your God shall be my God;
wherever you die, I will die,
and there I will be buried.
Thus may the Lord do to me and more, if anything but death separates me from you.

In this passage Ruth reveals what she will do (go where Naomi goes, die where she dies, etc.) but she never says why she will stay with Naomi unto death. She confesses that she will remain with her (her “allegiance”) but she does not reveal anything about why she will do so. The argument is a bit circular then.

All in all, I think Tod is fully correct in his observations, both in general about prose and poetry in Ruth and our inability to discern and yet the necessity of considering the characters’ motivations. He is also certainly right in stating that the fact that only Ruth and Naomi both have these poetic utterances serve to highlight them as the primary figures in the story. Poor old Boaz is reduced to archaic and confused utterances at the threshing floor.

 

משלי אדם – On reading handwritten Hebrew MSS

What a great set of posts and resources! Thanks for sharing this, it is very useful and I wish I had some guidance like this 20 years ago when I started reading manuscripts.

So You Want to Read Handwritten Hebrew Manuscripts, part II.

This post is a continuation of two earlier blog entries here and here.  Its purpose is to help facilitate the reading of handwritten Hebrew manuscripts for intermediate students of the language.  Psalm 113 serves as the subject of this comparison.

Read them all here: משלי אדם.

 

 

Teaching the Book of Ruth

In response to my earlier post on Campbell‘s comments about characters in the Bible John asked for a little guidance.

I have just started teaching Ruth on Wednesday nights. If you will, give me a little insight that would improve my job as teacher. We are going through the OT/HB and are beginning Ruth. Thanks.

I started to write a reply and it got a bit long and I realized that organizing my thoughts this way was useful to me and perhaps to others. So John, thank you for the request and I hope it is helpful to you and others. And here, ladies and gentlemen, is a brief introductory study guide for the Book of Ruth.

 I love really do love this book and I hope others enjoy studying it. I have posted a few things I have been working/thinking on over the last two years with regards to Ruth. I would suspect you are more than fully qualified yourself at teaching Ruth, but here are a few things I often pull out of the text in a lay context.

I should first point out that I do not say a lot about the dating of Ruth to a church or synagogue group because it is rarely fruitful. (However, I will dip into the question of Ezra’s divorce decree [Ezra 9-10] with reference to Ruth as a Moabite, as you will see.)
  • The book is only 4 chapters. How would you characterize each chapter?
  • What might this reveal about the structure of the book, its message, and its characters?
  • Consider the fact that the book is titled, in our canon, “Ruth.”1
    • Who is the “real” hero in this story? There is no “right” answer to this if scholarly consensus (or lack thereof) is anything to go by. (But see my next article!)
  • In what ways do the women in this book behave as we might expect a woman in the biblical world to behave? How do they differ? (And then perhaps also help your group to understand what we do/do not know about social norms and contexts of ancient Israel.)
    • How do these women breakdown the social expectations?
  • What role does Ruth’s foreignness play in the story?
    • Now read Deut. 23:3 and see if your thoughts about Ruth’s Moabite identity change how you view the story.
    • Now consider Ezra 9-10. In light of Ruth, is Ezra right in requiring the men divorce their “foreign” wives?
  • Is Ruth just an entertaining if thought provoking story or is there something deeper, more theological?
    • If there is a theological “point,” what is it?
    • How is that message conveyed through the characters, plot, and narrative?

    A few final suggestions for topics to noodle over:

    • Gender roles – How definite are they, are boundaries crossed, etc.
    • Power – Who is in a position of power in this story and how do they use that power. As important, who is not in a position of power and does that change or how do they cope with that?
    • Culture and Tradition – What roles do these play in Ruth? How are the challenged and manipulated?

    As you can see, in none of this do I get into issues of date, historicity, and so on. They are important and interesting questions but usually beyond what is appropriate for a church or synagogue study group. As I have said often, I think the best approach is to take the text seriously, that is to accept it on its terms and begin there. It is a “theological” text because the author assumes God exists and is at work with his people. Begin there and then conversation can move on from that point.

     
    1. Of course it is one of only two books in the Bible named after a woman. Once you have completed the study of Ruth, Esther is a nice counterpoint. []

    Campbell on the intent of characters in the Hebrew Bible

    I thought I had mentioned this on Targuman before, but apparently not. In his commentary on Ruth Campbell asserts:

    It is inherent in biblical thought generally that a person’s actions and words offer a true picture of the person’s character. Hebrew stories do not have characters with hidden motives and concealed agendas, or if they do, the audience is explicitly told about it.1

    Certainly biblical characters are often devious and do have agendas and perhaps Campbell is right in saying that when they do the audience is allowed into the conspiracy. But I am far from convinced that this is “generally” true or that the audience is always, explicitly told about the motivations all biblical characters. Unfortunately Campbell doesn’t offer a great amount of evidence. I am curious what others think of this.

    I should add that I am one of the first to say that it is nigh on impossible to discern an author’s intent thus it seems to me to be even more foolhardy an effort to discern a character’s motivation and intent (unless that has been revealed to us by the narrator, of course). This all has come up in reference to Ruth 2 and questioning why it was that Boaz waited until he met Ruth in the fields to “remember” his role as a (but not “the”) redeemer.

     
    1. Campbell, Edward F. Ruth. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: The Anchor Bible; Doubleday, 1975. []

    “Theodicy or idiocy”?

    Scenes From A Multiverse – A daily comic about life by Jon Rosenberg (a fellow Cornellian). He does bring up some good points. (Oh, and in case you don’t read the title above the comic, in which case you probably aren’t reading this either, the piratey looking fellow being interviewed is “Original God.” All installments can be found here.)