you shall be my people - ruth 1.16-17
Post on 04-Apr-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
1/18
"Your People Shall Be My People":
Family and Covenant in Ruth 1 :1 6-1 7
MARK S. SMITH
New York UniversityNew York, NY 10012
RUTH 1:16-17 BELONGS to one ofthe most inspiring expressions of interper
sonal solidarity found in the Bible. In view of the "moving rhetoric"1 of these
verses, Wilhelm Rudolph considers them the high point ofthe first chapter.2 In the
emotional dialogue between Naomi and Ruth, with each woman seemingly as
determined as the other, it is Ruth's words in the final round, in vv. 16-17, that
dramatically recast the terms of their relationship in a form often regarded as
poetic.3
At the heart of these verses are lines that may be read as three bicola:4
This essay is dedicated to my in-laws, Sonia and Ted Bloch, inspirations to me in manyways.
I wish to thank Daniel Fleming and William Holladayfor offering comments on an earlier draft of
this essay. I am also grateful to Linda Day for herhelp.1 So Adele Berlin, "Ruth," m Harper s Bible Commentary (ed. James L. Mays; San Francisco:
Harper& Row, 1988)263.2
Wilhelm Rudolph, DasBuchRuth, DasHoheLied, Die Klagelieder ( 17/1-3; Gtersloh:Mohn, 1962) 42.
3 For example, the commentaries of Rudolph (Das Buch Ruth, 40) and Edward Campbell(Ruth- A new translation with introduction and commentary [AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975]
61-62, 74) lay out w. 16-17 in poetic lines. For a characterization of these verses as a "very lyricalsection," see Jack M. Sasson, Ruth A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and aFormalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd ed ; Biblical Seminar 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
2/18
"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 243
For to where5 you go, I will go; f?K ^ n TtfiX ^And in where you lodge, I will lodge; TX TO itf Km
Your people shall be my people, "* "|37And your god will be my god.6
In where you die, I will die, max 'man iff X3And there I will be buried. inpx Dtfl
Modern readers readily and rightly grasp the affective dimension of these words,
which is evident from the context. At the same time, for the book's ancient audi
ence Ruth's words contain a conceptual sensibility that informs their affective
power. After a brief survey ofcurrent proposals in the following section, I ventureto uncoverthe ancient sensibility ofRuth 1:16-17 through an examination of bib
lical and extrabiblical parallels.
I. Current Proposals
Ifthe relationship ofNaomi and Ruth has been severed socially by the death
ofthe man who drew these two women together in the first place, then how would
the new relationship as expressed by Ruth's words be understood by an ancientaudience? There have been essentially three approaches to this question.
First, much of Jewish tradition has viewed Ruth's words as an expression of
conversion.7
Scholars who address this view largely reject it. Rudolph, Edward
5Most render the forms of TtfiO/TtfX as relatives ("wherever"); see BDB 82, #4b. The trans
lation here, presupposing "in the place (where)," reflects an effort to capture what may be regarded
as either an ellipsis for "the place where" (as in the expression # D1pQ3 in the parallel in 2 Sam
15:21 discussed below) orthe older locative sense ofthe word 1WN. In eithercase, the locative sense
seems applicable in this instance as indicated by DEH in the final line. The older locative sense of
the relatives is attested in the development ofthe noun **atr, "place" (Ugaritic atr\ AramaicDatra)
into a relative, as attested in KTU2.39.33b-35:3adm
2atr Htbqt w stn ly, "As for the person, wher
ever he is, find (him) and send him/it (word of him, in a letter) to me." For the general understand
ing, see Dennis Pardee, "A Further Note on PRU V, No. 60," UF 13 (1982) 151-56, here 152,
especially his comment: "If these readings are correct, it becomes clearthat *atris not functioning
as a relative pronoun, though the syntactic function ofthe word here is the very one that led to its
becoming a relative pronoun (accusative ofa noun meaning 'place' = 'in whateverplace' 'wher
ever' 'which')" (p. 156). For comparisons ofthis passage with EA [El-Amarna tablets] 143:
7 and its parallel use of Akkadian asar, see Anson Ramey, "Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,"UF 3 (1971) 151-72, here 162; and JosefTropper. Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Mnster:Ugarit Verlag 2000) 798 For further discussions see UT 19 422; Tropper Ugaritische Grammatik
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
3/18
244 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007
Campbell, and Adele Berlin, for example, mention the idea of conversion,8 which
they resist in view of the relatively minor role that religious observance and belief
play in the text. Berlin's comments nicely capture the situation at this point in thebook:
In what amounts to a change of identity, from Moabite to Israelite (for there was as yetno formal procedure or even the theoretical possibility for religious conversion), Ruthadopts the people and God of Naomi. Religion was bound up with ethnicity in biblical times; each people had its land and its gods (cf. Mie. 4:5), so that to change religion meant to change nationality.
9
As reflected in this quotation, modern commentators generally reject that thenotion of conversion in its traditional form is represented here. As a modification
ofthe traditional idea of conversion, Gillis Gerleman sees a sort of "judaization"
of Ruth expressed in her words.10 As noted below, this formulation arguably
denotes a shift at a higher level of sociopolitical complexity than the book itself
expresses about Ruth's linkage to Naomi. Other commentators who also see con
version as the central issue in Ruth, however, would see the book as a polemic
against the need for foreign women to convert. As Moshe Weinfeld characterizes
this older view, the book was viewed as a "protest against the Ezra-Nehemiah atti
tude toward foreign women (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13:23-29)," but he notes that this
view "has no basis at all" in the text.11 Recently, the idea of Ruth as a polemic
against the need to convert has been advanced in a modified form by Yairah Amit.
She suggests that the references to Ruth as a Moabite evoke an "implicit polemic"12
against the "Ezra-Nehemiah attitude toward foreign women." By definition, detec
tion of "implicit" phenomena is difficult to confirm or disprove. Although one may
remain open to this approach, it only partially addresses the terms of Ruth's speech
in 1:16-17; indeed, Amit barely mentions these verses. This issue may lie in the
background of the book, but it is nevertheless insufficient for understanding the
terms of Ruth 1:16-17. In sum, neither approach to Rutheither pro-conversion
or anti-conversionhas met with general acceptance. Conversion (or "judaiza-
further discussion and textual citations of Ruth as a convert, see Aaron Rothkoff. '"Ruth. Book of:In the Aggadah,'* EncJud 14. 522-23. See also Moshe David Hem "Ruth Rabbani EncJud 14. 524.
8Rudolph. Das Buch Ruth, 43; Campbell Ruth, 80; Berlin. "Ruth/5 263.
9Berlin, "Ruth." 263.
10
Gillis Gerleman, Rut Das Hohelied (BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1965) 20; and discussed favorably by Nielsen, Ruth. 50.
11Moshe Weinfeld '"Ruth Book of " EncJud 14 522 For examples of this view and exten
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
4/18
"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 245
tion") as such does not appear to constitute the basic horizons of the terms in Ruth's
speech.
Second, some scholars concentrate on the significance of various elementsof 1:16-17 as expressions of cementing bonds. In 1:15-19a, what he nicely calls"the pledge," Jack Sasson comments on the speech-act of "your god will be my
own" (as he translates the line): "This usage suggests not only the act of worship
ing, but also alludes to all the deeds and acts which cement a bond between indi
viduals and their deities."13
Marjo C. A. Korpel examines v. 17a and specifically
its reference to death, but otherwise she offers little discussion of the relationship
between the two women.14
Athalya Brenner sees a contractual arrangement
between the two women by which Ruth pledges labor to Naomi as a "female foreign worker" in exchange for benefits issuing from her new social situation in
Bethlehem.13
On the whole, these reflections capture different aspects of Ruth's
WOrds, but they do not address the larger conceptual framework informing her
speech.
A third approach characterizes the bonds involved in terms of covenantal lan
guage. Attentive to the use oihesed in Ruth 1:8-9; 2:20; and 3:10, Campbell comments on 1:6-22: "The striking thing about the theology of the Ruth book, however,
is that it brings the lofty concept of covenant into vital contact with day-to-daylife, not at the royal court or in the temple, but right here in the narrow compass
of village life."16
Alice L. Laffey characterizes Ruth's words as an expression of
"covenant fidelity."17
Andr Lacocque has also drawn attention to the use oihesed
in 2:20 in his characterization of Ruth's change in status in 1:16-17 as one of "voluntary displacement."
18He also points to 2 Sam 15:21 as a parallel to 1:16: "wher-
13Sasson, Ruth, 29.
14Marjo C. A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pencope 2; Assen: Van Gorcum,
2001) 80: "Like Naomi, she defies God, challenging him to end her life prematurely, as he ended
the lives of Ehmelech, Mahlon and Chihon."l- Athalya Brenner, "Ruth as a Foreign Worker and the Politics of Exogamy," in Ruth and
Esther A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) (ed. Athalya Brenner; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 159-62. For anachronism in Brenner's reading, see Roland Boer,
"Culture, Ethics and Identity in Reading Ruth: A Response to Donaldson, Dube, McKinlay and
Brenner," in Ruth and Esther A Feminist Companion, 163-70, here 164. For further discussion of
Brenner's proposal, see Victor H Matthews, Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary:
Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 222. For possible scenarios that mayhave induced Ruth's choice, see Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Ruth (Interpretation; Louisville: John
Knox 1999) 33-34
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
5/18
246 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007
evermy lord the king is, whether for death or for life, there your servant shall
be."19 The loyaltyposed here by Ittai to David in vassalage terms ("your servant")
does echo Ruth's expression. As suggested below, this parallel reflects the type ofterms for relationships that are expressed in treaties and covenants. Other terms
associated with covenant in the larger context would tend to support this approach.
In Ruth 2:11, when Boaz recounts what Ruth has done, he acknowledges "how
you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth and you came to a
people that you had not known ever before" (71 TWT'V ItfK D5T7X ^\). The first part ofthe last, independent clause echoes Ruth's own pledge in
1:16, while the following, dependent clause adds the covenant/treaty notion of
"knowledge." The people and/or god whom one does (or does not) know is a markof covenantal relations. In treaty terms, the verb means to recognize politically
(cf. Akkadian idu),20 while at the level ofthe family, the idiom of knowledge may
express "covenantal" recognition across family lines.21 Within the immediate com
pass of w . 16-17, however, neither Campbell norLaffey points to evidence that
would confirm their characterizations of Ruth's words as covenantal. In contrast,
Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in her characterization of the words of Ruth's speech,
observes that they "resonate with the Bible's cadence of covenant and contract."22
In support of herview, she cites 1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7, as well as 2 Chr 18:3.
23
The parallels that Frymer-Kensky cites have received little notice in the schol
arly literature. Moreover, Frymer-Kensky does not fullyworkout the significance
of their impact for the meaning of Ruth's speech, both in its immediate context
and in the context of the book as a whole. In addition, there are further extra-
biblical parallels of treaty language worth comparingand contrastingwith Ruth
1:16-17. These parallels in the biblical corpus and beyond help to indicate the
"covenantal" language in 1:16-17 and how it might have been understood. For
1 9Andr Lacocque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subvershe Figures in Israels Tra
dition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990) 111-12; idem. Ruth, 52.20
See F. C. Fensham, "The Treaty between the Israelites and Tynans," in Congress Volume
Rome 1968(ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 71-87. here 73-76: Herbert Hufmon.
'The Treaty Background of Hebrew yda^ BASOR 181 (1966) 31-37: Herbert Hufmon and Simon
B. Parker, "A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew yda
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
6/18
"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 247
these reasons, it appears appropriate to explicate further Frymer-Kensky's observation. The following discussion is divided into three parts. In the next section, I
identify biblical and extrabiblical treaty parallels to Ruth 1:16-17 in terms ofstructure, content, and worldview. In the subsequent section, I probe the model of family on which these covenantal expressions are based. Here I point out that it is notcovenant that is the lofty concept brought down to routine village life in the bookof Ruth, as Campbell understands the situation; instead, family relations are beingexpressed by Ruth, and it is the model offamily extended across family lines thatis being expressed in treaty and covenant language. Once the conceptual relationship between family language and covenant has been clarified, in the final part of
the essay I engage the analysis ofthe biblical parallels to Ruth 1:16-17 and theirimplications for understanding the relationship between Naomi and Ruth. Thisconclusion ofthe study confirms what I think many modern readers intuitivelygrasp: with her words Ruth establishes a family relationship with Naomi that transcends the death of the male who had connected them, and in fact this relationshiprepresents a family tie closer than that expressed by the formal status of former inlaws.
24The parallels in the next section help to locate and clarify this understand
ing in its ancient context.
II. Biblical and Extrabiblical Parallels to Ruth 1:16
Two biblical passages containing wording similar to Ruth 1:16 are 1 Kgs 22:4and 2 Kgs 3:7. Both embedded in contexts of international relations (1 Kgs 22:1-4;2 Kgs 3:4-7), the texts express cooperation between two parties:
Three years passed without war between Aram and Israel.And in the third year, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, came down to the king of Israel.2-
And the king of Israel said to his servants:"Are you aware that Ramot-gilead is ours, yet we do nothing about taking itfrom the power of the king of Aram?"
And he said to Jehoshaphat:"Will you go with me (TIN "pnn) to war at Ramot-gilead?"
And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel:["I will go up (rfWN) with you;]26
24
For example, Rebecca Alpert ("Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the BookofRuth," in Reading Ruth Contemporary Women Reclaim a SacredStory [ed. Judith A. Kates and GTwersky Reimer; New York: Ballantine 1994] 91-96 here 94) comments "Ruth and Naomi are
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
7/18
248 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007
Like me, like you ("TIED "lE!)).27
Like my people, like yourpeople ("|ESD "S73),
Like my horses, like your horses (T010D "OIOD)." (1 Kgs 22:1-4)
Now Mesha, king of Moab, was a sheep-breeder,28 and he would pay29 to the king ofIsrael 100,000 lambs and 100.000 rams in wool.And as soon as Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. Andthat very day King Jehoram left Samaria and mustered all Israel. And he proceeded30
to send (a message) to Jehoshaphat, king of Judah:"The king of Moab has rebelled against me;Will you go with me (7) to Moab for war(against him)?"
And he [Jehoshaphat] said:"I will go up (727) [with you]:Like me, like you (T.D MIED).Like my people, like your people ("|E37D *E27D),Like my horses, like your horses (T010D "OIOD)."
And he asked:"Which road shall we go up (7273)?"'
And he [Jehoram] said:"The road ofthe wilderness ofEdom." (2 Kgs 3:4-7)
Both passages present the kings ofIsrael and Judah preparing to join in war
fare against a third monarch, with whom the king ofIsrael has a dispute. The first
case involves a territorial dispute with Aram, the second a rebellion bythe king of
Moab. In both cases, the king ofIsrael calls on King Jehoshaphat ofJudah for aid,
and in both situations Jehoshaphat agrees to help. Both passages presuppose treaty
relations between the kings ofJudah and Israel, so that one can call on the other
in mutual assistance against a third party. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor
note the treatyrelations involved here, and theycite biblical parallels (1 Kgs 22:49-50; 2 Kgs 8:18; and 2 Chr 18:3). as well as a statement by King Niqmaddu to his
Hittite overlord, Shuppiluliuma: "With the enemies ofmylord. I am enemy; with
his ally, I am ally" (PRUIV, RS 17.340.13).31 Jerome T. Walsh comments on the
2
" See Judg 8:18 for this syntax: nniD ".2 8 So the NJPS translation. Fordiscussion ofMesha as IpZ. see Richard C. Steiner. Stockmen
from Tekoa. Sycomores from Sheba (CBQMS 36: Washington. DC: Catholic Biblical Association of
America, 2003) 70-87, esp. 77. 85.2 9 For the construction ofC-stem of -7 2T\see BDB 999a. =2f. citing "to gi\e in payment."in 1 Sam 6:8 17: and "to pay as tribute " in 2 Kgs 3:4: 2 Chr 27:5: cf 2 Kgs 17:3 and Ps 72:10 (with
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
8/18
"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 249
role of Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:1-4: "Jehoshaphat's deference suggests Judah's sta
tus as lesserpartner, perhaps even vassal, of Israel."32 Noting the parallel in 1 Kgs
22:1-4, ChristopherT. Begg comments in a similar vein about Jehoshaphat in 2 Kgs
3:7-8: "This exchange suggests that Judah was subordinate to Israel at this time."33
Cogan, however, would take issue with this understanding of Judah's subordinate
status within the treaty relations as expressed in 1 Kgs 22:4.34
Whatever the details
ofthe actual situation, it is clear to these interpreters that the text uses treaty lan
guage, specifically equivalence or identification of resources.
To anticipate the final section of this essay, it is the appearance of UV in this
usage here that especially resonates with Ruth 1:16. At the same time, it is impor
tant to acknowledge the differences in context. In the passages from Kings, this !?
is military in character, and so Cogan and Tadmor correctly understand the word
as "forces."35
Their translation also makes an effort to capture the force ofthe -
particle: "my forces are as your forces; my horses are as your horses." They cite
BDB, in its view that the repeated . . . - . . . - functions "to signify their com
pleteness of the correspondency between two objects."36
Bruce K. Waltke and
M. O'Connor discuss instances of what they call this "identity construction," in
which the two parties named share some predication; as they say, "like father, like
son."37 Neither BDB norWaltke and O'Connor cite the two Kings passages, buttheir remarks may permit an inference about the construction in these two
instances: the military forces and horses ofthe two monarchs will fight in unison
as if (... -) they are one and the same single resource for this casus belli. Below
I will explore the significance of these passages for interpreting Ruth 1:16-17, but
it is necessary beforehand to look at the wider context of treaty and covenant at
both the royal and family/clan levels.
As noted above, Cogan compares the passages from Kings with Ras Shamra
(RS) 17.340.13. He is surely correct in noting the treaty relations involved in thetexts from Kings and RS 17.340.13; however, the types of treaty discourse differ.
Ras Shamra 17.340.13 identifies persons ("with his ally, I am ally"). In contrast,
the passages from Kings equate the resources of the two kings; in other words,
"what's mine is yours and vice versa." The treaty discourse in the texts from Kings
falls under the larger rubric of two parties understanding themselves as a single
political entity, in what an important but often overlooked study by Paul Kallu-
3 2Jerome T. Walsh, "1 Kings," NJBC, 1. 174.
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
9/18
250 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007
veettil on the language of treaties presents under the heading: "We are all one."38
He cites two second-millennium Akkadian treaty texts under this rubric. The survey that follows begins with the text most proximate to our passages from Kings,
with its explicit expression of shared resources as a representation of "treaty one
ness." The list moves to Kalluveettil's second text, followed by three others that
identify partners "as one" in various ways. To complement the treaty texts, a cou
ple of letters from the Amarna correspondence that reflect the same conceptual
assumptions are added.
1. RS 18.54 A, lines 17'-20' (PRUIV,pp. 228-29):
As for me I have said: Everything ofmy house is yours and everything of your houseis mine (gab-bi mar-sl-ti sa b-t-ya a-na ku-n-su-nu mar-s[T-ta] sa b-t-ku-nt-y[a\).
This text between unnamed parties cites an earlier text that expresses treaty rela
tions between them. As the writer calls his addressee, the king of Ugarit, "my
brother" (line 7), it is apparent that parity relations are involved. According to
Kalluveettil: "The writer... is committed to behave as if they belong to the same
family, his possessions really belong to his ally and those of his partner to him."39
Here the parties are only implicitly one, embedded in the notion that their resources
are regarded explicitly as a single entity.
2. Mursilis II of Hatti to Talmisharruma of Aleppo in text 6, rev. lines 9-10 (E.
Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsvertrge in
akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazki [Boghazki Studien 8-
9; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923] 86-87):
May all of us together and our house be one (gab-bi-ni bt-ni lu- istn).40
Kalluveettil lists this case under the rubric "we are all one." Insofar as this case
does not identify resources as shared, but "our house" as one, this passage falls
more generally in the category of identification of parties as one. It is instructive
to see that despite what might sound like an expression of parity, this is an expres
sion by an overlord, the Hittite king, to his vassal, Talmi-Sharruma of Aleppo. This
usage also appears in international correspondence that presupposes parity-treaty
relations. In El-Amarna tablet (EA) 19, the king of Mitanni, Tushratta, writes toNimmureya (a.k.a. Amenophis III) to request gold. In order to add persuasive force
t hi t T h tt i d A hi "Thi t i b th '
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
10/18
"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 251
try, and this house is my brother's house" (line 70).41 The rhetoric in this case
assumes a large shared household of these two "brothers," itself a common termin parity-treaty relations.
3. RS 20.162, lines 17-19 (Ugaritica F [Mission de Ras Shamra XVI; Paris:
Imprimerie nationale, 1939] 115):
"Amurru and Ugarit are one" (mat Ma-mur-ri matMu-ga-ri-te istnen-ma sunn).
In this letter to the king of Ugarit, his servant Parsu discusses communications
with Amurru about a shared enemy. The identification of two lands as one pertains
to their overall relationship, which would include an expectation of cooperation,
such as the use of their resources against a hostile force. In similar terms, this one
involving a discussion of exchange of valuables, Tushratta reminds Amenophis
(EA 24:68-69): "we, between us, are one, the Hurrian land and the land of
Egypt."42
4. RS 17.382 + 380, lines 3-4 (PRUIV, p. 80):
"For a long time, the king of Ugarit and the king of Siyannu were one" {ul-tu la-be-er-ti srmatal-ga-ri-it srmatals-ia-an-ni istn en-nu-tu^ su-nu).
This text, an edict of Mursilis governing his relations with king of Niqmepa of
Ugarit, opens with these lines. In wording quite similar to the formulation in the
preceding example, this text uses the terminology of oneness to open a description
of the relationship between Ugarit and Siyannu.43
5. 1 Maccabees 12:19-23:
This is a copy of the letter that was sent to Onias:"Arius, king of the Spartans, sends greetings to Onias the high priest. A document hasbeen found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descendedfrom Abraham. Now that we have learned this, kindly write to us about your welfare.We, on our part, are informing you that your cattle and your possessions are ours,
41 W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1992) 45. Note also EA 16:32-34 (Moran, Amarna Letters, 39): "If your purpose is graciously one
of friendship, send me much gold. And this is your house. Write me so what you need may befetched."
42 Moran Amarna Letters 65
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
11/18
252 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007
and ours are yours ( ,
). We have, therefore, given orders that you should be told ofthis." (NAB)
With this example, we leave the world of second-millennium Syria for the Hel
lenistic period. If the document is essentially authentic, as Jonathan A. Goldstein
maintains,44 it would date to the earlythird centuryB.C.E. during the time ofOnias I
(high priest from ca. 323-300 or 290 B.C.E.) and Arius I (Spartan king from ca.
309-265 B.C.E.).4 5
Here the treaty language of brotherhood entails the parties'
resources, which Goldstein compares with the language of shared resources in 1
Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7 discussed above.
All in all, these examples indicate the considerable extent of the treaty/covenant idiom ofshared identity and resources.
46
III. Covenant and Family
The texts presented in the preceding section largely derive from the realm of
international relations. It is evident that in terms ofcontext, these stand at a con
siderable distance from the situation ofRuth. What fundamentally underlies these
differences is a matterofinternational relations versus relations on the family level.What is the conceptual relationship between these two spheres? In his characteri
zation cited above, Campbell sees covenant as a loftyconcept brought into contact
with village life. Based on some recent studies, this view of matters may be
inverted: covenant is an extension of family relations across family lines.
Campbell's view was understandable in view of the pace and direction of
scholarship on ancient NearEastern treaties. Beginning in the late 1950s, studies
identified treaty and covenant in international contexts across a wide spectrum of
political and economic documents dating to the second and first millennia. Perhaps
4 4 Jonathan A. Goldstein, IMaccabees: A new translation with introduction and commentary
(AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 447-60, esp. 450-52. See also W. J. Heard, Jr., "Sparta/\4#A
6. 176-77. See furtherStephanie von Dobbeler. Die Bcher 1/2 Makkaber (Neuer Stuttgarter KommentarAltes Testament 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997) 121-22.
43 For a critical discussion of the figures involved and their dates, see further Neil J. McEleney,"1-2 Maccabees," NJBC, 1.437.
46 Goldstein, / Maccabees, 451. In his portrait of Galba, the Roman historian Suetonius
(Twelve Caesars 7.20) provides in his account of the emperor's death (which came seven monthsafter his accession in 68-69) another example of the language of "oneness" of identity. Himself a for
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
12/18
"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 253
best known through the work of Dennis J. McCarthy,47 this international treaty
language was readily identified in a repertoire of expressions grouped in biblical
studies under the rubric of covenant.48 The line of research continues to command
wide attention.49 A great deal of this treaty or covenant vocabulary clearly was
family vocabulary, by which the parties to the treaty expressed their relations in
familial terms"father" and "son" in vassal treaties, "brother" in parity treaties.
In these instances, treaties established relations between two monarchs who were
unrelated in terms of family lines. The larger world of ruling monarchs could be
understood as a large family or a series of families, in which each king knew his
place, whether as overlord, equal, or vassal. Family was, to use Mary Douglas's
expression, a "natural symbol" for expressing these sets of relations.30 This con
ceptual usage was not restricted to narrow family terms but extended to other
expressions at home in the family, such as the language of love and familiarity (or
literally, "knowledge").
In this scholarly landscape, the familial setting of this language was obvious.
Scholars of covenants and treaties cited instances of individuals making covenants
to establish ties across family lines. As illustrations, we may take three well-known
examples. David makes a covenant with Abner (2 Sam 3:12, 13; cf. 3:21). Rahab
makes an alliance with Joshua's scouts via an oath by which they promise to do
hesedto her in return for her help (Josh 2:12-14).51 This example is further perti
nent to the case of Ruth and Naomi, as it also involves an oath as the mechanism
4~ Dennis J. McCarthy, S.J., Treaty and Covenant A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental
Documents and in the Old Testament (New edition completely rewritten; AnBib 21 A; Rome: Pon
tifical Biblical Institute, 1978). See also his Institution and Narrative Collected Essays (AnBib
108; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1985).48
See the list in McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 328-34; Kalluveettil, Declaration andCovenant, 219-35.
49 In addition to Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (n. 20 above), recent studies include
Michael L. Barr, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. A Study
in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty' Tradition (JHNES; Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1983); Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon History and Literature in AncientIsrael (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 3-21; Gary N. Knoppers, "Ancient
Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant," JAOS 116 (1996) 670-97; Jacqueline E.
Lapsley, "Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 65 (2003) 350-69; Robert A.
Oden, "The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Ancient Israel," in Ancient Israelite Religion
Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean
McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 427-47; Theodore J. Lewis, "The Identity and Function of
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
13/18
254 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007
for establishing the interpersonal covenant. The third case, the covenant between
Jonathan and David (1 Sam18:3;
20:8; 23:18), often comes to mind in discussionsof covenants. It seems that some language in this case echoes old treaty forms used
by kings. William L. Moran notes the expression "to love PN as oneself in both
1 Sam 18:3 and in the oath of Assyrian vassals made to Esarhaddon.52
Rather than reflecting influence from the top down, as Campbell viewed the
direction of influence, the appearance of idioms in both the David-Jonathan
covenant language and in international treaties may reflect the fact that such lan
guage was operative in various sorts of covenantal relationships, not only at the
international level. These casesand further examples could be brought to bear
indicate that covenantal procedures appear operative on various social levels. It is
for this reason that covenant could be readily applied to marriage (see Mai 2:14;
Ezek 16:8; Prov 2:17).53
Despite the recognition of such cases, it often escapes
scholarly attention that covenantal relations could take place at all levels of soci
ety and not only in the settings most conspicuous from newly discovered texts,
namely, the international relations among royal courts. Covenant is a mechanism
useful for family life, to extend relations beyond the family, or even to intensify
relations within family life (e.g., Gen 31:44-50).54
Accordingly, royal treaties are
to be seen as monarchic expressions of basic family and clan relations, and not the
other way around, as Campbell supposed.
This shift in perspective was expressed in a fresh way by Frank Moore Cross.
In an essay entitled "Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel," Cross formulated
the basic point that covenant is fictive family relations:
Often it has been asserted that the language of "brotherhood" and "fatherhood,""love," and "loyalty" is "covenant terminology." This is to turn things upside down.The language of covenant, kinship-in-law, is taken from the language of kinship,kinship-in-flesh.55
The implications of this insight had been recognized in 1982 by Kalluveettil in
Declaration and Covenant. A student of McCarthy, Kalluveettil pointed to a wide
variety of nonroyal examples of covenant language. Like Cross's essay, Kallu-
veettil's volume indicated that covenant is modeled on family and was operative
32William L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteron
omy." CBQ 25 (1963) 77-87, esp. n. 33. See further Ada Taggar-Cohen. "Political Loyalty in the Biblical Account of1 Samuel xx-xxii in the Light of Hittite Texts," VT55 (2005) 251-68, esp. 258.
33
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
14/18
"YO UR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 255
in both nonroyal and royal contexts in order to express relations between persons
or parties who were otherwise unrelated to one another.
56
Kalluveettil accordinglycharacterizes covenant as "a fictious extension of kinship." 57 In other words, it is
functional at several levels of society. Kalluveettil concludes: "It is wrong then to
tie it down to the political field."58 It is not family bonds that are simply like inter
national treaties or covenants, but rather covenants and treaties, whether at the
individual, group, or international level, that constitute interfamily relations across
family lines. Family is the basic model, whether at the local level or the interna
tional level, for establishing ties across family lines.
IV. Implications for Ruth 1:16-17
This discussion of covenant and family has implications for understanding
Ruth's words to Naomi and the parallels cited for them in the books of Kings. Ruth
expresses at the level of the family and clan what Jehoshaphat conveys at the level
of international royal relations. The words of Jehoshaphat represent the treaty/
covenant relationship on the royal level across family lines; Ruth's words repre
sent the covenant relationship across family lines that have been sundered by the
death of the male who had linked the lives of Ruth and Naomi. As noted earlier,
Campbell and Laffey nicely characterize Ruth's wish in terms of covenant; how
ever, Ruth's words may be characterized as a covenant between two parties unre
lated by blood. As Kalluveettil points out in another context: "It is as if the
newcomer shares in some sort the same blood." 59
With this understanding of covenant and family, we are in a better position to
account for the similarities and differences between Ruth 1:16 and the parallels in
1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7. At the heart of these responses of Jehoshaphat are terms
that notably resemble the words of Ruth:
Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:4b and 2 Kgs 3:7b:
Like me, like you; TIED 'JlDLike my people, like your people; 1Q7D "OTDLike my horses, like your horses. "pOIOD "OIOD
Ruth in Ruth 1:16b:
Your people shall be my people, "S? "pS?And your god will be my god.
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
15/18
256 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007
To begin, it is important to note what is perhaps the most conspicuously shared
item among the terms used here to express relations. Despite significant differ
ences in grammar, both Jehoshaphat and Ruth speak of "my people" and "your
people" as terms linked in a nominal clause. Both speakers connect what is theirs
with what is their addressee's. Marking these expressions of relationship is the use
ofthe pronominal suffixes, in particular "your" and "my."60 These are found not
only in the forms of international relationships examined above, but also in rec
ognized expressions of covenant (e.g., Exod 6:7; Jer 31:33).61
This usage is a
rhetorical device that marks the inclusion of the bonded parties together. At the
heart oftheirspeeches, Jehoshaphat and Ruth understand that the nouns repeated
are what they share. In addition, there is a less direct similarity, but it is one that
in light of the preceding observations seems advisable to include for considera
tion. In expressing their devotion, both King Jehoshaphat and Ruth will go (*"pn)
with their different addressees: the kings will go together in battle, while the
women will go togetherto Bethlehem. This sort of agreement is attested at the clan
ortribal level in Judg 4:8. To Deborah's request that Barak go with her into battle,
he says: "If you will go with me, I will go; and if you will not go with me, then I
will not go." She answers in the following verse: "I will indeed go with you." In
the context ofthe passages from Kings, Jehoshaphat adds "I will go up" (*!7) inhis response to the question of going together as posed in the question put to him.
In these two passages the additional verb, *JTO, belongs to the larger setting of
battle,62 but it also serves to show the kings going together, much as Naomi and
Ruth do.
Within the larger similarity between the passages from Kings and Ruth 1:16-
17, there are some notable differences that help to sharpen the understanding ofthe
force of the words in both sets of texts. First, the parallel terms in Jehoshaphat's
speeches are military resources, while Ruth's words have family and religiousterms standing in parallelism. So, as noted in section II, DS7 in the two contexts res
onates differently: "force(s)" for Jehoshaphat, but "people" for Ruth. Second,
Jehoshaphat's words carry the double -D construction, while Ruth's do not. So for
the former, the military resources shared by the two kings will function as if they
constitute a single force for this context. Ruth, in contrast, uses no -D particle. She
means that what is shared is literally shared, not simply for one occasion but from
that moment onward in the story. Third, if we may judge from the order of his
words, Jehoshaphat's perspective begins with his own resources, which he is pre-
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
16/18
"YOURPEOPLE SHALL BE MYPEOPLE" 257
pared to devote to his treaty partner. In contrast, Ruth puts Naomi's people and
god first; what is Naomi's will be Ruth's. In the order of his words, Jehoshaphat
gives what is his to his ally, while Ruth begins with Naomi's belongings andthereby subsumes her identity underthe terms of what makes up Naomi's identity.
Fourth, the relations between the two sets of parties aim for different goals. The
shared relations invoked in the passage from Kings are designed to achieve the
defeat ofthe enemy, which will include the deaths of some of the combatants. In
contrast, Ruth's words serve to maintain shared relations despite the threat to the
family, specifically the potential threat of death posed by the famine. Fifth and
finally, the resources shared by the two kings are mutually shared on the occasion
oftheirjoint militaryactions, whereas the people ofRuth and the people ofNaomido not become one people. Rather, Ruth joins to the people ofNaomi.63 There is
a way in which the end of the narrative reverses this direction of joining, with
Naomi in a sense joining the family ofRuth and Boaz, but for this point, it is nec
essaryto address Ruth's new identity and its unfolding in the context ofthe story.
At the outset of this study, I cited Adele Berlin's insightful observations about
Ruth 1:16-17. She rightly sees a change of identity operative in Ruth's speech.
Accepting Berlin's notion of a change of identity, one may see the nature of the
change in the most repeated element in Ruth's words, and that lies in her use ofthepronominal suffixes. These locate the change of identity in the context of what
Ruth can name as their sharing: their people, their deity, their sojourning, and their
place ofdeath. These are the steps of life that the two women take together from
now on in the story. The book does not stress the idea ofRuth becoming Judean
as such. In fact, the word "Judean" (or "Israelite") does not occur in Ruth. Of
course, Judah. along with Moab, serves as the setting for the story (1:1, 2, 7), and
that Ruth is a Moabite is expressed in the story (1:4, 22; 2:6; 4:5, 10). She recog
nizes herself as a foreigner (2:10). The Judean ethnic identity ofNaomi's family,however, plays no role in the drama that unfolds, save for the veryend ofthe nar
rative. At that point, the book relates Ruth to the "house of Israel" and the line of
descent associated with the line ofJudah (4:11-12). Priorto the ending, the empha
sis falls on Ruth's joining Naomi and herclan, the social setting signaled at the out
set ofthe story (1:1-2). The point of reference focus ofthe D57 is the family or clan
(2:1, 11). Similarly, the is Yhwh as the protective, personal god of Israel
(2:12), not so much Yhwh as the national god. Religion is not the main, overarch
ing concern of the text, but one dimension within a larger fabric of life. Thesojourning ofthe women togetherinvolves their travels back to the family home
in J d h d th l f b i l i th l d f Naomi's t Y t t th d
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
17/18
258 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69, 2007
Here Ruth's identity marked in 1:16-17 as a familial bond is linked to the general
or national level of Israel. To belong to the household ofNaomi is to connect to the
house of Israel. Yet between these two points in the story, family terms dominate.Naomi and Ruth continue to be characterized, mostly in the narrative, as in-laws
(- in 1:14; 2:11, 18, 19, 23; 3:1, 6, 16, 17; 2:20, 22, 23; 3:1, 6, 17; -TOD in
1:6,7, 8,22; 2:20,22; 4:15). This stands in contrast to the representation ofNaomiherself, who addresses Ruth only as "my daughter." At the time of the death of
Ruth's husband, Naomi calls Ruth and Orpah "my daughters" (1:11, 12, 13), and
after Naomi and Ruth travel together to Bethlehem, Naomi continues to call Ruth
"her daughter" (3:18). As far as the text reveals, Naomi regards Ruth as family,
specifically as her daughter.The story says little more about the relationship, but perhaps more can be
inferred from the unfolding of this tale. The relationship between Naomi and Ruth
began when they became related through a male. After the death ofthe male who
bound the two women together socially, Naomi accepts the place of Ruth in her
life, and overthe course ofthe narrative she guides herinto the family structure and
communal life. By the end of the story, these two women perhaps achieve what
may be regarded as the ideal relationship between in-laws. Through most of the
narrative, the mother-in-law gives a new family context to the daughter-in-law,and at the end the daughter-in-law literally gives new family to the mother-in-law.
So although Ruth technically remains Naomi's daughter-in-law (4:15), at the close
ofthe storyNaomi joins Ruth in a new relationship. With the birth ofRuth's son,
Naomi is called JTIftX (4:16), and the people say that a son is born to Naomi (4:17).
Ruth 4:16-17 thus reverses the situation between the two women: Naomi now joins
Ruth's family in a manner that completes Ruth's words in 1:16-17. In 4:16-17,
Ruth helps to give family to Naomi, just as Naomi accepts Ruth's terms of family
in 1:16-17. Ruth helps to provide the family that Naomi lost and in particular thegrandson that Naomi never had, and within this web of new relations, Ruth and
Naomi found a family and home together. Now it is Ruth's D? that is indeed
Naomi's UV. Implicitly in Ruth's wordsand all the more movingly for its unstated
qualitythese formerly female in-laws enjoy a family relationship that clearly
blurs the social categories of family blood lines versus in-laws; theirs is nothing
less than the love of a mother and her daughter. For, from the beginning to the end
of the story, Naomi calls Ruth "my daughter."
-
7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17
18/18
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.
top related