Targuman

Teaching the Book of Ruth

May 18th, 2012

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.

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. [↩]

Posted in: Bible, Devotional, Ruth.
Tagged: Ruth · Teaching Hebrew Bible

Campbell on the intent of characters in the Hebrew Bible

May 18th, 2012

by Christian Brady.

6 comments

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.

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

Posted in: Bible, Ruth.
Tagged: Criticism · Ruth

Penn State Softball

May 18th, 2012

by Christian Brady.

No comments yet

PSU Softball, a set on Flickr.

For whatever reasons my son loves softball. Part of it is the beautiful Beard Field at Penn State. We can sit right on the front row, next to the PSU dugout and see all the action. These are just a few shots that he and I took of the last few games this season.

Posted in: Photo.

“Facebook IPO: Good for the Jews?” or anyone?

May 17th, 2012

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

This is a very curious article by Uriel Heilman. He begins with something interesting:

If the Talmud were written today, would it look like Facebook?First, the rabbis of the Mishnaic period post a Jewish legal rule. Then, Talmudic sages weigh in with their comments, all pithy and lacking punctuation. Almost immediately, the comments grow far longer than the original post. Eventually, outside links to the Shulchan Aruch and Maimonides’ compendium of Jewish law appear on the right side.It may sound too cute by half, but if you look closely, the Talmud and Facebook actually share similar layout.

And then goes on to ask the question in the title.

For a few in the Jewish community, Facebook’s IPO raises the $64,000 question — or in this case, the $64 billion question — of how much of that newly created wealth will go to Jewish causes. The jury’s still out on whether Facebook’s Jewish creator, Mark Zuckerberg, will turn into a major Jewish giver following the IPO, when the just-turned 28-year-old figures to become one of the richest people in the world.

There is something (not a lot really) in the first observation. Years ago by colleague Greg Spinner pointed out that midrash (and all rabbinic works containing it) is very much like the web. The “speaker” will drop a single word or short phrase into his exposition and like a hyperlink in a webpage it takes the audience immediately to the referenced text. Of course the audience had to know that “when you lie down and when you rise” is a reference to Deut. 6:7 and all that it entails. Facebook does provide a place for community engagement, but I think Biblioblogs are more akin to the rabbinic traditions.

His second point, and to be fair to Heilman he quickly dismisses it and moves on, is not surprising to those of us who regularly work in development (fund raising). When we see a college football player sign a major contract in the NFL I promise you there is someone from his alma mater making sure he is aware of how proud his school is him and that they would be happy to help him reduce his taxes through charitable donations.

But as I said, Heilman recognizes that this is not really the point of impact for the Jewish world and in fact, his opening comments notwithstanding, I think does get at what Facebook is doing for communities, religious and otherwise.

But the real story of Facebook’s impact on the Jewish world ultimately is likely to be more about the ways it is prompting Jews to change the way they think, behave, organize, and even mourn and celebrate than it will be about Zuckerberg’s tzedakah.

I do not think (and apparently GM agrees with me) that Facebook is going to be worth the financial evaluation it will receive tomorrow. That being said, it is proving to be a valuable tool of finding new communities and restoring old ones. The diaspora needn’t be so dispersed any more.

via Facebook IPO: Good for the Jews? | JTA – Jewish & Israel News.