Ruth

Age in the Book of Ruth and a Proxy Marriage?

It is well known to those who give the Book of Ruth even a cursory reading that Boaz is older than Ruth and, in fact, is closer to Naomi in age. In the comments of a paper on Boaz that I posted here over a year ago, Robert Holmstedt, who has a great book on the subject, Ruth: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text, pointed to some of his own work in which he noted that the “antiquated” language in the book is often in the mouths of Naomi and Boaz.

In my Baylor Handbook I considered 7 features (oddly, I now see that I discussed the paragogic nun elsewhere, although it fits at this point as well) and drew this conclusion (2010:49):

“These seven features are, in my opinion, best understood as part of the story-teller’s creativity and linguistic artistry. And yet they are not simply literary window-dressing. It is no accident that five of the seven features are in the mouths of No‘omi and Boaz, while only one is use in Ruth’s speech. The narrator set up a light ‘linguistic curtain’ with the audiencea on one side and No‘omi and Boaz on the other. The implication is that, while they audience is reminded throughout the Ruth is a foreigner, they are also encouraged, by linguistic means, to identify with her. Although No‘omi is the story’s protagonist and her redemption is an important theological message, Ruth is the heroine of the story and it is her courage and loyalty that the audience is encouraged to take in the most deeply. No‘omi may have been re-filled by God, but God has provided for Ruth across cultural and political boundaries — an important reminder for the Israelites at many historical points.”

(Robert was hoping to produce an article on this for the fall of 2010. Did you get that published Robert? I would love to see it!)

In his Anchor Bible Commentary volume on Ruth, Edward Campbell spends quite a bit of time commentating on Boaz’s age, noting that everyone in chapter two is referred to as being old, in reference to Boaz; the young men, Ruth is a “young woman” (‎‏הַנַּעֲרָה) in Ruth 2:5, and of course Boaz’s “young women” whom Ruth is to follow.

"Oh my gosh! Is that a...woman?!"

In chapter 3 we have the famous scene at the threshing floor when Ruth uncovers Boaz’s “feet.” When Boaz wakes he commends her, saying,

May you be blessed by the LORD, my daughter; this last instance of your loyalty is better than the first; you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich.

Clearly Boaz is older, perhaps much older, than Ruth. Campbell concludes his musings on this matter by asking, “What purpose is there behind these devices?”

One senses that the story-teller means to give his characters a certain credibility in this way. Perhaps also there is a need, especially in the case of Naomi, to underscore the truth of her own assertion in 1:12 that she is too old to have a husband. As for Boaz there may even be a question about his ability to a sire a son. …In any event, senior citizens they [Naomi and Boaz] are, and the audience should appreciate them as such.¹

Keeping this in mind, consider the curious description of the birth of Ruth’s son, Ruth 4:16-7.

Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her bosom, and became his nurse (‎‏וַתְּשִׁתֵהוּ בְחֵיקָהּ וַתְּהִי־לוֹ לְאֹמֶנֶת). The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.”

I have always found the description of Naomi becoming Obed’s “nurse” very odd. True, the Hebrew text describes her as a “foster-mother” (וַתְּהִי־לוֹ לְאֹמֶנֶת) rather than as a wet nurse (‎‏אִשָּׁה מֵינֶקֶת), but the fact that she is described as laying him on her bosom and that they women say a son has been born to Naomi… Well it just makes a fella think.

What I am beginning to wonder is if the marriage between Ruth and Boaz was more of a marriage of convenience than previously thought. We all know that Boaz married her for, on a basic level, the purpose (as confused as the legal situation is) of maintaining the name of Mahlon and providing for these two widows. But when I consider that Naomi and Boaz were contemporaries and significantly older than Ruth (I am not sure I would say that they are “senior citizens” since in our modern context that would mean to most well over 60, something unlikely in the time period) then I begin to wonder if Naomi and Boaz are the real romance and that the women of the town knew that this was the case. Naomi cannot produce a child and Ruth needs to be provided for so and protected so Boaz marries Ruth, but his heart belongs to Naomi.²

I am by no means convinced that this idea has any merit. If Naomi and Boaz were the real love interests, then why did Boaz just not marry Naomi? While Machlon’s name may not have been “preserved” Elimelech’s would have been and the property would have remained in the family. Still, I wonder if these different threads of the story should not be woven together in some fashion….

Campbell, pp. 110-1. [↩]
Too schmaltzy? Yes, but this is a blog and as I have noted elsewhere, context allows one to be more casual in some contexts than in others. [↩]

New Translation of Targum Ruth Available (here!)

Jun 18th, 2011

by Christian Brady.

5 comments

Targum Ruth 2:4, Solger MS

I am very (very) pleased to post my translation of Targum Ruth. It can be found here and the opening comments and first verse are below. This is a first draft and the English needs smoothing, but I thought I would do a bit of “crowd sourcing.” Feel free to read it and comment. Short of access to Beattie’s edition (see below) if you have the Accordance Targum module ¹ then you have the base text or, once it is back online, you may view the Aramaic of TgRuth at CAL.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

This is a translation of Derek Beattie’s critical edition, Targum and Scripture: Studies in Aramaic Translations and Interpretations in Memory of Ernest G. Clarke, SAIS 2, ed. Paul V.M. Flesher (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 231-90. The base text is Sassoon 282 (S), which dates to 1182, the oldest MS available. I am grateful to Dr. Beattie for being will to allow his critical edition to be in my forthcoming book as an appendix.²

This is a first pass and does not contain various notes that will be present in the final version. In most cases where words are found in [] and are not italicized they are missing in the MS but are necessary to represent the Hebrew vorlage (MT). In some cases, particularly in TgRuth 1:1, there are words or phrases which are not in S (and are part of an aggadic expansion) but are necessarily for the expansion to make sense. If you have any corrections or comments (or corrections, remember, this is a first pass) please contact the me at cbrady@psu.edu.

The copyright is held by C. M. M. Brady. No use of this translation may be made without the author’s permission.

Chapter 1

1 When the judges led there was a [severe] famine in the land of Israel. Ten severe famines were decreed from Heaven to be in the world from the day of the creation of the world until the time when the King Messiah shall come, to reprove through them the inhabitants of the world. The first famine was in the days of Adam. The second famine was in the days of Lamech. The third famine was in the days of Abraham. The fourth famine was in the days of Isaac. The fifth famine was in the days of Jacob. The sixth famine was in the days of Boaz, who was called Ibzan (אבצן) the Righteous, who was from Bethlehem. The seventh famine was in the days of David, the King of Israel. The eighth famine was in the days of Elijah the prophet. The [ninth] famine was in the days of Elisha in Samaria. And the tenth famine will be [in the future], not a famine of eating bread nor a drought of drinking water, rather of hearing the word of prophecy from before the Lord. And when that famine was severe in the land of Israel a great man from Bethlehem of Judah went out and went to dwell in the field of Moab, he and his wife and his two sons.

Read all of Targum Ruth.

This translation will be in the Accordance translation module in due time. [↩]
The images of a TgRuth MS on this site are of Codex Solger MS 1-7.2° (Solger) and should not be confused with the base text used in the translation which is Sassoon. The Sassoon MS is in private hands and I have only a photocopy of a facsimile available and do not have permission to post the images. [↩]

Peloni Almoni

Jun 7th, 2011

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

Far more famous than I will ever be. Oh, and total mensch!

I am very grateful to my friend Dr. Robert Cargill (yet again!). He has given me the wonderful gift of…a URL! http://pelonialmoni.com/

This comes from, as you all know, Ruth 4:1 ‎‏ וַיֹּאמֶר סוּרָה שְׁבָה־פֹּה פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי The NRSV provides a lovely (if not entirely accurate) translation, “So Boaz said, ‘Come over, friend; sit down here.’” The term ‎‏פְּלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי is a bit problematic, to say the least, often rendered as “so and so.” But I like the comfortable sound of NRSV’s rendering, a bit like the southern, “Y’all come over here and sit for a spell.”

Knowing that I am currently working Ruth and its Targum Dr. Cargill was incredibly kind in making this gift. At the moment the URL points to my page on Targum Ruth. In the future, given this inspiration, I think I will expand that site for Ruth research at large or…well, let’s just wait and see.

Conference: “New Perspectives on Jews and Judaism”

Apr 7th, 2011

by Christian Brady.

1 comment

Given my recent research on the Book of Ruth, rabbinic interpretation thereof, and rabbinic conversion I am very disappointed that I will likely be traveling on the West Coast during this conference. If, however, you are in the Philly area and have such interests you should not miss this.

Taking Turns: New Perspectives on Jews and Judaism The 17th Annual Gruss Colloquium in Judaic Studies, May 2-3, 2011

A sampling of the schedule:

MONDAY, MAY 2
Ben Franklin Room, 2nd floor
Houston Hall
3417 Spruce Street

9:15 am Coffee and Light Breakfast

9:45 am Greetings

David Ruderman, Ella Darivoff Director,
Katz Center
Rebecca Bushnell, Dean,
School of Arts and Sciences

10:00 am Re-Reading Ruth

Chair: Sara Japhet, Hebrew
University/Katz Center

Adele Berlin, University of Maryland
Ruth and Jewish Identity
in the Persian Period

Jeffrey Shoulson, University of
Miami/Katz Center
“Grafting in Bad Stock”:
Ruth in Early Modern England

Sarah Gracombe, Stonehill
College/Katz Center
“Engrafted” or “Alien”?:
English Representations of
Ruth from 1830 to 1930

Respondent: Kathleen Biddick,
Temple University

The character of Boaz in TgRuth…so what?

Aug 10th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

4 comments

You know, of course, that last week was the IOTS and I presented a paper on Boaz in Targum Ruth. I was going to post my paper here, but I have changed my mind. (I will post the audio as a podcast later today.) I realized that the paper is so long folks are unlikely to read it all and I will submit the whole thing as an article later this year anyway, so that can wait.

The Chair

On the other hand, I did want to share my basic conclusions as well as my thoughts on why such a study matters. The final few paragraphs of the paper will suffice.

So how has the character of Boaz changed in the Targum? His character in terms of his moral qualities remains positive, but any questions that might have existed, such as those put forward by some modern scholars, are eliminated as his reputation is now beyond reproach. But the character of Boaz within the story, the figure within this moral tale, has changed quite dramatically. He has gone from a relative unknown “prominent rich man” to becoming the epitome of the judge and sage. He is the man that all should seek to emulate.

And that brings us to some final observations. What has been done thus far is quite simple. I have set the texts next to one another and looked for the differences, to see how the Targumist has changed Boaz in his rendering of this text, and offered a simple systematization of those differences and changes. But what of it? Any such survey is mere data collection unless we reflect upon the evidence and draw some conclusions.

The first is that based on content alone we can suggest that TgRuth, if we had any doubts, is in its current form a late text. While one should always be cautious when suggesting primacy of exegetical traditions, we can say with relative certainty that in the case of TgRuth the interpretive traditions found in the Targum are well established in other and likely earlier texts. In fact, many of them such as the reference to Boaz as Ibzan seems to presuppose the audience’s knowledge of the tradition. Certainly the ruling of the sages placed in the mouth of Boaz did not originate in the Targum.

The Targumist was able to choose from a broad preexisting corpus of exegetical material and yet was relatively conservative in what was included. So why did he choose to include the reference to Joseph and Paltiel but exclude the tradition that Boaz dies on the night of his wedding? A complete answer will require a lot more thought on my part and is the primary subject of my book, but a few preliminary comments can be made now.

Whereas the biblical text was, in many ways, seeking to answer the question, how it is that King David came to have a Moabitess as a great grandmother, the Targum has become a rabbinic moral tale. Where the biblical text shows the faithfulness of Ruth to Naomi, the Targum presents her as the prototype of a proselyte. In short, each addition to the biblical text was chosen by the Targumist to exhort his audience, whether it was used for personal study, in the school or synagogue, to strive to follow the example of Boaz to be a righteous man, strong in the Law and faithful to rabbinic precepts.

If you think about it, there are quite a lot of studies out there in our field(s) that do a great job of presenting data, but rarely drawing conclusions. In my specific niche of Targum studies I think that such questions are very important for understanding what is really going on in the Targumim. Of course Ruth and the other Megilloth are small enough that the Targumist would have been able to frame and structure an overarching exegetical agenda throughout the entire work. The Targumim to the Pentateuch, for example, are not likely to have the same traits, at least not over the entire book of Genesis, for example. On the other hand, Avigdor Shinan has shown that we do find such exegetical strategies being played out over a given Parashah.

So what?

Always a good question to ask of ourselves when we get to the end of a paper, book, argument, or sermon. Don’t you agree?