Ruth 3 Exegetical Assignment
#1 Syntactical Question:
What kind of construction is the waw + non-verb followed by a non-preterite construction wyt;l¿GÒr]m' tb,k,vo hV;ai hNEhiwÒ ("and here a woman was lying beside him") in 3:8b? The construction here is a disjunctive clause. This clause functions as a "dramatic" clause, or as Bush calls it, a "surprise" clause (p. 163). Chisolm says that the narrator here invites the audience to experience Boaz’s surprise at finding a woman at his feet in the middle of the night at the threshing floor (p. 127). This clause "not only makes the scene lively and vivid but also presents it to us very graphically from Boaz’s own point of view (Bush, 163).
How is the clause functioning in the plot structure of this episode in the book? The clause functions as a plateau in a goal-based plot. Ruth is seeking Boaz as a husband (as the goal), and though she proposes to him here (in a roundabout way), the plateau, as opposed to a peak, is preferred because the episode is drawn out a bit over the course of more than one event.
What rhetorical effect is created in 3:8b by this clause? The effect here is that it presents a shift in the scene and focus. It is in contrast to the narrative sequence and introduces an adversative clause.
According to BDB hNEhiw often denotes graphic and vivid "discovering" or "seeing." It enables the reader to enter into the surprise or satisfaction of the speaker or actor concerned. The rhetorical effect created by the narrator’s use of the generic term hV;ai here rather than the personal name of Ruth "can be explained by the necessity of the Hebrew grammar, which must choose between vya and hV;ai (man and woman respectively) in order to say "someone." My feeling is that the sense of the verse is ‘hinneh, someone was lying at his feet,’ but since the reader knows that it is Ruth, it would be too incongruous to use the masculine for the impersonal" (Bush, 163). In sum, this rendering portrays both the surprise and the perspective of Boaz in a more appropriate way than using Ruth’s name.
#7 Lexical Question:
What is the meaning of the term dsj in 3:10? In this context it refers to loyal love, unfailing kindness, devotion, i.e., a love or affection that is steadfast based on a prior relationship. As BDB defines the term, it has to do with goodness and kindness as behavior characteristics of God and/or man. For man it is to be kind; for God it is His condescending goodness to His creatures. Sakenfeld (233-34) denotes that dsj is a loyal and gracious act that 1) springs from an existing relationship, 2) involves an urgent need on the part of the recipient, 3) is a free act on the one performing it (not out of responsibility), 4) involves an extraordinary element of mercy or generosity (going the extra mile).
What does Boaz mean in 3:10 when he says, "Your latest act of dsj is better than your first act of dsj? What was the earlier act of dsj to which he refers? What is the latest act?
Ruth's earlier or first love was the love she had shown to her deceased husband and to Naomi, to which Boaz comments in 2:11. The later love she had shown is explicit from the following phrase, "in that you have not gone after the young men whether rich or poor." But in some sense it is her proposal of marriage to Boaz that she might find a successor to her deceased husband, through a marriage with him, in accordance with family custom (Ruth 4:10).
Why does Boaz view Ruth’s request for marriage to him in 3:9 as an act of dsj? It seems, in light of dsj ‘s meaning here, that Boaz is actually calling Ruth’s proposal of marriage to him as more kind than her devotion to Naomi and her deceased husband. In this sense the term would not be anything more than a kindness to Boaz and/or an act that is simply in line with the laws of the land in that Ruth had to remarry the next of kin to keep her deceased husband’s line in tact. In this sense dsj would make no sense because it would be fulfilling a moral obligation, and that is not part of the essence of this term. This is not the case however. Ruth was under no obligation to marry the next of kin. She was "a free agent when it came to remarriage" (Sasson, 127). There is also no hint of Boaz and Naomi or Naomi and Ruth as working behind the scenes to fulfill any moral obligation of the levirite marriage. What Boaz means here is that Ruth’s "kindness" is her faithfulness to her dead husband in the continuance of his name and family, rather than pursuing her own desires and fortunes in a marriage to a younger man (Bush, 171). Ruth’s act of dsj then, appears to be directed to her deceased husband Mahlon, although her kindness also extends greatly to Naomi, and to some extent Boaz too.
#9 Rhetorical Question:
To understand the advice which Naomi gave to Ruth, and which Ruth carried out, and in fact to form a correct idea of the further course of the history generally, certain legal relations must be understood. According to the theocratical rights, God was the actual owner of the land which He had given to His people for an inheritance; and the Israelites themselves had merely the use of the land which they received by lot for their inheritance, so that the existing possessor could not part with the family portion or sell it at his will, but it was to remain for ever in his family.
When any one therefore was obliged to sell his inheritance on account of poverty, and actually did sell it, it was the duty of the nearest relation to redeem it as the next of kin. But if it should not be redeemed, it came back, in the next year of jubilee, to its original owner or his heirs without compensation. Consequently no actual sale took place, but simply a sale of the yearly produce till the year of jubilee (see Lev 25:10,13-16,24-28). There was also an old customary right, which had received the sanction of God, with certain limitations, through the Mosaic law-namely, the custom of levirite marriage, or the marriage of a brother-in-law. It stated that if an Israelite who had been married died without children, it was the duty of his brother to marry the widow, that is to say, his sister-in-law, that he might establish his brother’s name in Israel, by begetting a son through his sister-in-law, who should take the name of the deceased brother, that his name might not become extinct in Israel. This son was then the legal heir of the landed property of the deceased uncle (cf. Deut 25:5 ff.).
In this case, Elimelech had owned land in Bethlehem, which Naomi had sold from poverty (Ruth 4:3); and Boaz, a relative of Elimelech, was the redeemer of whom Naomi hoped that he would fulfil the duty of a redeemer-namely, that he would not only ransom the purchased field, but marry her daughter-in-law Ruth, the widow of the rightful heir of the landed possession of Elimelech, and thus through this marriage establish the name of her deceased husband or son (Elimelech or Mahlon) upon his inheritance. Led on by this hope, she advised Ruth to visit Boaz, who had shown himself so kind and well-disposed towards her, during the night, and by a species of bold artifice, which she assumed that he would not resist, to induce him as redeemer to grant to Ruth this levirite marriage. The reason why she adopted this plan for the accomplishment of her wishes, and did not appeal to Boaz directly, or ask him to perform this duty of affection to her deceased husband, was probably that she was afraid lest she should fail to attain her end in this way, partly because the duty of a levirite marriage was not legally binding upon the redeemer, and partly because Boaz was not so closely related to her husband that she could justly require this of him, while there was actually a nearer redeemer than he (Ruth 3:12).
According to 20th century customs this act of Naomi and Ruth appears to be morally objectionable. However, it was not so when judged by the customs of the people of Israel at that time. Boaz, who was an honorable man, and, according to Ruth 3:10, no doubt somewhat advanced in years, praised Ruth for having taken refuge with him, and promised to fulfil her wishes when he had satisfied himself that the nearer redeemer would renounce his right and duty (Ruth 3:10-11). As he acknowledge by this very declaration, that under certain circumstances it would be his duty as redeemer to marry Ruth, he took no offense at the manner in which she had approached him and proposed to become his wife. On the contrary, he regarded it as a proof of feminine virtue and modesty, that she had not gone after young men, but offered herself as a wife to an old man like him (Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database, Copyright 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).
Naomi’s primary objective in sending Ruth to Boaz in 3:1-4, was as evidenced by verse one, rest (jwonm): "Shall I not seek rest for thee." Rest here is equivalent to marriage. Naomi felt that Ruth should not remain a poor gleaner in the fields, and since Ruth had no mother (in Judah, at any rate), Naomi determined to take the initiative to arrange a marriage.
It seems clear that Ruth understood what Naomi had in mind for her because she bathed, took off her widow’s clothing, and dressed in a garment to represent her availability to meet with the man she clearly knew to be a family redeemer. When she woke Boaz up she told him just that.
Ruth’s agenda in asking Boaz to play a role in being the laog is clearly that Boaz marry her in order to carry out the name of her deceased husband. The use of the term is to "redeem, act as a kinsman." This would be to marry her and buy back Mahlon’s land, have children, and carry on the family name and inheritance. It is not clear whether or not Naomi’s motives and Ruth’s motives were the same, but Naomi must have had more in mind than just to find rest in marriage for Ruth. Ruth too, must have had something else in mind when she decided to give herself to a man who was much older than she was, but both women were thinking in terms of the family line because both women were agreed in their attempt to have Boaz redeem their land and name. Boaz surely believes Ruth to be proposing more than just marriage due to his usage of the term dsj. He would hardly have used that term for a woman that just wanted to marry him. Rather, he understands her proposal as one of selflessness in that Ruth is thinking more in terms of her family (Naomi and the deceased Mahlon) than of herself. She is under no obligation to marry Boaz, but she still goes forth to do it. Boaz goes along with Ruth’s request, but given his integrity, not immediately. He knows there is someone closer than he is in relation to the women so he tells Ruth. It’s almost as if he had already thought through the process of that unnamed person’s clear obligation. He knows what goes into the levirite marriage law, and he appears to not just "go along" with her proposal, rather, he takes the legal steps to make it just that, legal. He also knows that marrying Ruth is not just some lucky venture for him whereby he gets to marry a young woman, rather, it is also about buying land and carrying on the family name.
The idea of securing a husband for Ruth appears to come strictly from Naomi in her quest to find her "rest." The record is clear that both Naomi and Ruth had the purest of motives in their plans to meet Boaz on the threshing floor. Although Ruth had been kindly treated by Boaz, he had made no suggestion concerning marriage. Naomi now planned a way by which Ruth might be able to meet Boaz alone. It was Boaz, however, who came up with the idea of raising up offspring to carry on the family name, redeeming Naomi’s field, and providing her with a grandchild in verse 13 when he states that he will perform the duties of the redeemer if the closer one would not. It is clear that Boaz understood what the kinsman-redeemer’s responsibilities were. Each person was looking out for the other in chapter three. Ruth was looking out for her deceased husband and her beloved mother-in-law; Naomi had Ruth’s welfare in mind and the name of her husband; Boaz was looking out for Ruth by keeping her presence a secret so as not to tarnish her reputation.
On the whole, in must be concluded that had not Boaz been a person of extraordinary piety, prudence, and continence, this experiment might have been literally fatal to Ruth, for Boaz could have charged her as an adulteress and had her stoned to death. It is not easy to figure out what Naomi had in mind exactly, but she knew more than she revealed to her daughter-in-law.
RUTH 3 EXEGETICAL ASSIGNMENT (part II)
#1 Textual Criticism:
In Ruth 3:3a there is a Kethiv/Qere reading. The Kethiv reading is Jtel¿m]ci while the Qere reading is JyIt'l¿m]ci. The term as it is found in BDB is hl;m]ci generally referring to clothing or garments. The difference in the two readings is that the Kethiv reading is singular ("garment") while the Qere vocalization reading is plural ("garments") as evidenced by their morphological forms. The Kethiv reading is supported by more than 20 medieval manuscripts, but the Qere is only supported by a few. Hubbard observes that the usage of the singular and the plural is just about even in the OT, and he reads the Kethiv, taking it as a collective singular (page 197). The best reading appears to be the Kethiv because it is supported by the internal evidence. The garment is spoken of in Is. 9:5 as a large garment covering the entire body, and many other passages using it in this form. Furthermore, the Qere reading was probably motivated by the idea that if Ruth was wearing only one garment, she would have had to use that garment to carry the gift of Boaz’s grain home with her (Brotzman, 150). Thus, a scribe might have changed the reading to differentiate between the singular and the plural. The best reading is the Kethiv, and it can be taken as plural or singular.
#2 Discourse Analysis: (separate page)
#3 Plot Structure: