Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Robert Vining <rvining AT log.on.ca>]

The novellaist who crafted the Book of Ruth had a liberating message for
his/her  age, and for all ages.  Alas, the Gospel  of Ruth is not always
understood-the Good  News that God has changed, a lot.

The canonists were not sure where to put Ruth. The Christians, wanting
to put the story before the birth of David, opted for placement after
Judges where it sits awkwardly as if part of the ongoing history,
Genesis through Kings . Although a welcome intrusion into  the
hell-hole- world of  Judges 19-21, one has to blink upon emerging into
the sunlight of Ruth's peaceable kingdom.. The world of Judges, and the
world of Ruth are worlds  apart.    Everything is so different,
especially God. The Jewish canonizers,  although also wanting to put it
before beloved David,  knew it didn't belong there, for a number of
reasons,  especially because of it's theology. So, they, more
appropriately,  relegated it to the Writings, where it sits much more
comfortably amongst such god-critiquing , conventional-wisdom-
challenging books as Job and Ecclesiaites, and the godless books, Esther
and Song of Songs.

On second thought, let's leave it where Christians prefer it. Doing
this,  we do not lose the shock value which may have been the
Renaissance author's intention.  Observing the "read-the- context"
rule, let's regard Judges 19 through Ruth as one book consisting of two
chapters- a nice hour read. Chapter I: Judges 19-21; Chapter II: Book of
Ruth. Each chapter starts off with practically identical
once-upon-a-time like words- "in those days".. "long ago"- Judges 19:1
and Ruth 1:1.  (A suggestion-before reading Chapter I, read Genesis 19;
before reading Chapter II, read the final chapter of Ezra,  and
Nehemiah).

Chapter I  is a trip into hell. This is mankind at  his most morally
depraved, brutally inhumane.  A device the author uses to drive this
home is to take the  Sodom story, paraphrase it in a way so as to make
it's horrors even more horrific. The Sodomites had become the
touchstone-byword for the epitome of evil, so that for the Gibeahites to
be more evil  than them was saying a lot.*   Where in all of literature
is there a more appalling, ghastly, denigrating portrayal of the
demeaning  of a woman? In the Sodom story,  the wondrous power of the
angel-men apparently saved the  two virgin daughters,  that their
father, righteous Lot had turned over to the sex-crazed mob. Here, there
is no such miracle.  Tersely we are told, she was raped and abused all
night long, and they did not stop until morning. At morning light, the
narrator poignantly pictures her lying on the ground with her hand
reaching out to the door of the house behind which are two men , one of
whom is her husband, who had put her outside.  The narrator does not
tell us whether he slept well that night, but the next morning he seems
to be in a hurry as he opens the door "to go on his way". Not to check
on his wife, who more than anything seems to be in the  way of the one
who is on his way.. He speaks brusquely to her, and receives no answer.
We don't know whether she is dead or alive.** But, because of what is
about to happen to her,  both Jerome (Vulgate) and the  LXX translators
make a point of  assuring us that she was dead. Her husband puts her
body on his donkey, and takes her home. At home, her Levite husband
takes a knife, and cuts her body into 12 pieces, and sends one piece
each to the 12 tribes of Israel.  Every Israelite who saw their portion
of the dismembered body, and heard the story of the sexually- perverted
Gibeahites treatment of the woman, said, "We have to do something about
this!  What will it be?

What will it  be?  First, it will be the deity-directed annihilation of
all men, women and children, in Gibeah,  as well as animals. And, for
good measure they burned every town in the area, as in  the Sodom story.
Total destruction of every living thing, and structure. Then, because
the draft- dodging Jabeshites had not answered  the mustering roll call
at Mizpah, there fate was sealed. Meeting in solemn assembly, sitting
long in the presence of their god; then building an altar and offering
up burnt offerings  (some whole), and fellowship offerings, they reached
their decision. "Go and kill everyone in Jabesh, including women and
children. Kill all the males, and also every women who is not a
virgin."  Here, the extermination is not total, because  the Rimmon Rock
Remnant men  need women.  Since there were 600  RRR men, the 400 not-
killed- virgins of Jabesh, that were turned over to the men,  we are
told,  were not enough. The quota will be filled  by 200 dancing girls
who were seized by force while  dancing at the Feast of the Lord at
Shiloh.

In the literature these events are called the Outrage at Gibeah, and the
Massacre at Jabesh-gilead Salient is the emphasis on- how religious were
the perpetrators of these atrocities; how they waited in god's presence
for direction; how he talked to them; how he directed them and gave them
the "victory". Three times they consult their oracular god before
proceeding. Each  time, he tells them exactly what to do. The 3rd time,
he orders them to "Fight!  Tomorrow I will give you the victory over
them". The warrior-god is true to his word, and he gives them the
victory. He was especially present at Bethel. The sacred Ark of the
Covenant is there, and in charge is the ominous, phamous  Phinehas.  Not
some run-of-the mill priest, but the one who so pleased god, by his
decisive  action that the deity stopped his epidemic that had already
killed 24,000 people, and entered into a covenant with him and his
descendants to be established permanently as priests for all time to
come.  The god-pleasing action was   thrusting a spear through the
bodies of a copulating couple, an Israelite man and a Midianite woman.

But, enough already of this nightmare.  Let's move on to-

Chapter II, and, "Welcome to my world", in the words of an Eddie Arnold
oldie.  Thanks, but what a shock!  All is so different!  The people are
so different. Here,  "chesed" lovingkindness seems to prevail. But, most
stunningly, god has changed, and what a world of difference that makes.
The most conservative Radio Bible Class TV Show is touting a video
entitled, "The Changing Face of God". Yes, in Ruth, God has a new face.
The fiercely angry, jealous,  deuteronomic god who would kill instantly
without mercy any inter-marriers,*** now smiles His blessing on them. We
don't really know for sure if Boaz and Ruth do it before marriage, but
we do know that in this story there will be no covenant-honored Phinehas
to thrust a spear through mingled bodies. No Nehemiah will reprimand;
call a curse down upon; beat,  and pull the hair out of a Boaz,  wicked
for having married a foreign women. Boaz will not have to endure a
Nehemiahan lecture reminding him how guileful, foreign  women made weak
Solomon sin.  (The two most famous biblical inter-marriers are darling
David, and the wisest of all men, Solomon).  No Ezra,  who thought he
was doing the will of his god when he wrecked family and home, by
purging women and children. In Ruth,  God blesses intermarriage, and in
a special way the child of this union.

In Numbers 25, we read about the Israelite men who began to have sexual
intercourse with Moabite women, and worshiped their god, Baal-Peor. The
angry god of Moses said to him, "Take all the leaders of Israel,  and in
obedience to me, execute them in broad daylight, and then I will no
longer be angry with the people." Obediently Moses orders the officials,
"Each of you is to kill every man in your tribe who has become a
worshiper of Baal-Peor."  Apparently, there was not much religious
tolerance in those days-in contrast to the popularity of this idea in
our day. Today, everybody believes in religious tolerance.  Preachers
love to preach it;  politicians universally proclaim it. But, what about
back then, in biblical times?  Did the idea of a lethal, merciless,
Mosaic-Deuteronomic god of absolute religious intolerance****  reign
supreme? It appears, not!  The benign, benevolent God of Ruth appears as
tolerant of other religions as He was accepting of the intermarriage
abomination. Naomi says to Ruth, "Go back with her  (Orpah) to her home,
and to her god"-whether Baal-Peor, or Chemosh, or both, the author does
not tell us.  This God seems as tolerant and accepting of other
religions as our modern God.
Was the author of Ruth a lone Renaissance writer-a Voice crying in a
wilderness of general religious bigotry in that  Dark Age?  For how many
did our skillful author speak, when he/she expressed acceptance of
intermarriage,  and religious tolerance?  Perhaps that Dark Age was not
as dark as commonly thought.

It sure seems dark in Chapter I.  Lest, we be overwhelmed by it's
unspeakable inhumanity, let's consider what might be going on by taking
a close look at the drama's darkest character, the dismembering Levite.
Six times the author reminds us he is from the priestly Levite clan. As
we read the drama over a few times it begins to dawn us that there might
be a bit of polemicism going on here.  Not only in regard to the
internecine strife between the Benjaminites and the other confederation
tribes, but also amongst the competing priestly classes. This sordid
tale surely justifies the lowering  of the Levites to a subordinate,
servile status;  a demotion that  we read about in Numbers 18 and II
Kings 23. All is fair in love and war, and in polemics.  It is the
polemicists prerogative to paint his target, black, black, black. All of
this is quite tolerable if the story is taken with a grain of salt,
especially if it is the author himself who provides the salt. How come
originally the vastly undermanned Benjaminites gained the victory over
the much superior, massive army of the confederation? It was not just
that the god had not made his move yet, it was those bloomin'
slingshoters; an elite corps, all left-handed, and all so fantastically
skillful that everyone of them could split a single strand of hair with
one shot. Really now. Why does the author introduce them,  if not to
signal?  Why does the narrator of David's  (another superbly accurate
slingshoter) life tell us that the stalwart lad killed lion and bears
with his own hands, and that after decapitating the SuperGiant, he
carries Goliath's head around for awhile so as to later impress King
Saul with his trophy? Why does the Estherian author have the petard on
which Haman hoisted himself to be 85 feet high? Or that, the dumb but
lucky  Xerxes/Ahauserus  entertains night after night  the 400
(Josephus,  who is given to grandiosity) most beautiful virgins in the
entire 127 provinces, and this after a full year preparatory,
differential beauty treatment, making the most beautiful into
what...super- gorgeous?  Surely, these consummate craftsmen  had the
right to hyperbolize, and invent; to alert the reader as to what they
were up to. Did the early readers pick up signals, that later
orthodoxy-blinded readers miss?

Ruth 1:16 is justifiably well-known, well-loved, oft-quoted,
overshadowing a powerfully enlightening verse that comes before, 1:8.
Perhaps the Renaissance writer has gone too far here? Naomi prays, that
God should be so good.  So good,  as what. That He should be as good as
the two pagan Moabitess women have been to her, and the dead! The author
never let's us forget they are Moabites, and they are women.  One of
these good/kind Moabite women is on her way back to paganism, to her
gods.   God should be like her?

The brilliant artist that created the Esther story, for the purposes of
his/her agenda, leaves God out altogether. Not so in Ruth . Although, He
neither speaks or acts, (cp. Chap. I)  His presence is palpable. More
than benign, He is benevolent.  He is gentle, accepting  and kindly
(JPS), like Naomi, Ruth and Orpah.  This is the Good News of the Gospel
of Ruth. God has changed, a lot.


* Similarly, Ezekiel 16:44-58 says the Jerusalemites are more atrocious
sinners than the Sodomites.

**Re: the miscreants in Numbers 15,   we are twice  told that they were
swallowed up alive.

*** Deuteronomy 7:2-5

****Paul called those whose religious practices differed from his,
"dogs" and "evil men", and twice prays  that those who differ from him
be, "condemned to hell". Galatians 1:8,9 and Philippians 3:2   Paul
liked to cite selected  scripture.   One wonders if he read the Book of
Ruth.
-----

Robert Vining, Owen Sound, Ontario     rvining AT log.on.ca