(20 votes, average: 4.80 out of 5)
Loading...It’s been a long while since I’ve posted much of anything on the Old Testament, and it’s high time I did so! As I have announced recently, in February I’ll be publishing a six-lecture course on the Pentateuch (the first five books) – one of the most influential collection of books in the history of civilization. There are lots of other amazing books in the Old Testament as well, and it’s a real pity people don’t read them more.
With this post I am starting a thread on the “short stories” of Scripture. I begin with one of the truly greats, Ruth. This one will take a couple of posts.
I have taken the discussion from my book, The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 2018)
******************************
RUTH
One of the real gems among the books of the Hebrew Bible is the four-chapter book of Ruth, the tale of a Moabite woman married to and then widowed by an Israelite man, who then uses her wits, determination, and sexuality to ward off desolation. In the English Bible, the book appears in the middle of the Deuteronomistic History (even though it was originally not a part of it), because the opening verse indicates that its action took place “In the days when the judges ruled” (1:1). But it was written sometime after the Deuteronomistic History was produced; several words used in this gripping narrative are borrowings from Aramaic, and so the book appears to have been written in the postexilic period, possibly in the fifth or fourth century b.c.e. As with the other books we are considering in this chapter (apart from Jonah) it is found in the Hebrew Bible among the Kethuvim.
Among the distinctive features of this account is the fact that the main character is
Want to read more? Join the Blog! Costs little, gives lots, and every dime goes to charity. Click here for membership options
“…(even though it was originally not a part of it), …
…He eventually was the father of Jesse, who was the father of David. Ruth, the forsaken woman of Moab, is then in the ancestral line of King David…”
Is the main reason this story was added was because of the tale stating that Ruth was the great grandmother of David?
This story is not considered historical, correct?
If not historical, why have a Moab woman be David’s great grandmother?
It’s almost certainly not historical, and ye the tie-in to David must have been key.
Since the story is not historical, why do you think the creator of the story had David’s great grandmother be a Moab woman?
It’s a great question. I don’t have a great answer though I can think of some options (the author had a Moabite spouse! The author wants to show that God’s power extends beyond the Israelites to the whole world. The author wants to explain why intermarriage is acceptable and important. The author wants to show that God’s salvation can extend to gentiles, etc.)
And surely the other part of this story’s intentional message is not just what this particular author said as one individual but that it reflects those who curated it to be IN the Hebrew scripture / OT as part of collective Hebrew thought & accepted tradition? Just as with many non-canonical letters / gospels / stories outside the NT surely there were many that didn’t make the cut for OT – but Ruth WAS chosen to be in??
Mr. Ehrman, I have an unrelated question (unrelated but important nevertheless!). I would like to ask you how you understand the word “σαρξ” (=flesh) in Paul. I’m studying Galatians at the moment, and he’s been pretty hostile against it! In modern Greek lexicons, you find the term “σάρξ-σάρκα” meaning “the material hypostasis of man” or “the muscle part of men and animals” etc. But how does Paul mean it?
It’s a really important question, and a bit complicated. SARX for Paul is not what we think of as “flesh,” in the sense that it’s a kind of graphic term for the “body.” For Paul, the human body was a kind of neutral entity (called SOMA); it was mortal, weak, and gonna die, but that’s because something bad had happened with sin. SARX (“flesh”) on the other hand, was the bad part of the human that was SUSCEPTIBLE to sin that led people astray and corrupted them, leading to the problems the SOMA had. After the resurretion, people would have a glorified and eternal SOMA, but hte SARX, as the part subject to sin, would be desstoryed.
Wow! That was indeed a great question after all, and it induced an even more epic answer! 😂
I should have kept this for Christmas Q&A, shoot! (But, apart from joking, I do have an even better up my sleeve for that one!)
Very interesting insight. I wonder if Aldous Huxley drew inspiration from SOMA when writing Brave New World?
Paul seemed to believe that the law animated/excited the SARX part of the human, and aroused it to disobey, but as Christians have died to the Law through Christ, it can no longer arouse the SARX, and Christians instead follow the Spirit. (Rom7)
In Rom8:3, however, Paul seems to say that Christ appeared in the likeness of SARX, and God dealt with sin by condemning it in the SARX of Christ. Is that right? Did Paul believe Jesus possessed SARX?
Good question. The key term here is “likeness.” For Paul, as I understand him, Jesus had a soma that had every appearance of being like the human body, but it/he did not have sarx, since by its nature sarx is alienated to God. By dying to sin in his soma and then rising from the dead, he destroyed the power of sin, which is the power that animates the sarx making people alieanted from God
I’ve been thinking about this for the last few days, and something occurred to me.
Firstly, the Greek in Rom8:3 ends with “κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί”, that is God “condemned sin in the flesh”. However, ‘flesh’ in this case is ‘sarki’ (Sarx) not Soma. The same can be seen in 1Peter3:18 “[Christ] was put to death in the flesh (sarki), but made alive in the spirit.” It seems Paul and the author of 1Peter both believed that Jesus possessed Sarx, and died in it. Is that your understanding of the use of Greek here?
Secondly, and this is what occurred to me in the shower this morning, rather than viewing Rom8:3 as an indicator of Penal Substitution (as NT Wright claims), perhaps it is closer to Christus Victor? My thinking is this: as Paul believes that God condemned sin in the Sarx, rather than the Soma, and as the Sarx is the problem part of humanity that arouses disobedience and alienates us from God, then it follows that Christ suffers to defeat the problem Sarx, rather than to satisfy divine wrath by suffering in his innocent Soma. In your view, is this a defensible exegesis of Rom8:3?
Yeah, good questoins. I don’t think Romans is speaking of Jesus’ own sarx, but of “the sin that is resident in [human] flesh” — that is, it is closely connecting sin with sarx for humans. Jesus condemned it. 1 Peter definitely thinks of sarx and soma as synonymous, but not Paul I’d say.
Victor: interesting interpretation. My guess is that Tom is thinking that Paul has some consistency betweeen ch. 8 and ch. 3, where he speaks of Hilasterion and redemption through his blood. It would be interesteeing in thinking it all thorugh though.
Thanks for engaging in this. Your mastery of Greek is well beyond me, so I may be interpreting this wrong, but I see Rom8:3 as follows:
Θεὸς (God) is nominative, so is the object.
Υἱὸν (son) is accusative, so is the subject.
So isn’t it God who κατέκρινεν (condemned) sin in his son’s σαρκί (flesh), rather than Jesus who is doing the condemning?
On a related note, I notice that 1John4:2 and 2John1:7 both insist that Jesus possessed σαρκί, and those who deny this are condemned as heretics. At first, I thought John was following 1Peter in holding soma and sarx as synonymous, but perhaps there’s a bigger theological struggle going on here?
John may have encountered some proto-docetic teaching that claimed that as Jesus was without sin, he could not possess sarx, and instead only possessed spirit infused soma.
Perhaps John countered by insisting Jesus did possess sarx (as well as soma) as the sarx was necessary to excite, animate, and attract the sins of the world (1Jn2:2) to the cross (a bit like a cosmic lightning rod). Without the sarx, Jesus was unable to draw all sins to himself to be condemned, and without that condemnation, there was no atonement.
YOu have it reversed: nominatives are subjects and accusatives are objects. Even so, the object of the verb “condemn” is not “”son” (“son” is the object of “sending”) but “sin” God condemned “sin that is in the flesh” (not the flesh of Jesus; the flesh of humans, where sin resides.
Whoops! I managed to get my wires crossed there.
How do you get the interpretation that it is human flesh, rather than Jesus’ flesh where sin is condemned?
I’m assuming it is because elsewhere Paul claims Jesus is without sin, so that’s why he must in this instance be referring to non-Jesus human flesh?
If so, I wonder if merely possessing sarx necessarily means one is sinful, as resisting the urges of sarx (living in perfect obedience to the law), whilst difficult, may not have been impossible for Paul’s Jesus, as Jesus did what we could not do, and (in Paul’s eyes) led a sinless life?
It’s just how I read the grammar; he condemens “the sin that is in the flesh” rather than “the sin that was in his flesh.” Possessing sarx for Paul means having that element of being human that is susceptible of sin; that’s why at the resurrection “flesh” will not inherti the kingdom. I imagine Paul thought Jesus didn’t have sarx; he never says explicitly, but he’s worried about human sarx; and he says elsewhere that Christ came in the “appearance of human flesh.”
Many thanks for engaging with me on this subject. I’ve not come across this interpretation of Sarx before, but it makes a lot of sense and it throws up all sorts of interesting questions I will enjoy exploring.
Merry Christmas to you and yours, Bart. It was fab meeting you earlier in the summer in London and I hope you have a wonderful 2022. And many thanks for all the great content you provide on a nearly daily basis and for engaging with your subscribers – it’s really appreciated.
Dr. Ehrman,
In all seriousness, how can we know that the phrase uncovering the feet means the same as having sex?
“Feet” appears to mean “genitals” in other places in the Bible — such as the cherubim of Isaiah 6. And the assumption is that if she’s stripping off Boaz’s clothes it’s not so she can have a pillow. In the context (his eager decision to marry her), it appears pretty clear that’s what’s going on.
Modern Judaism is matrineal (as my own Jewish heritage is a testament to). Was this also the case in ancient times? Many of these stories from the Hebrew Bible seem to have almost no emphasis on the mothers’ lines but are completely obsessed with the fathers’. Did it change at some point?
Good question. But no, it’s a modern invention (see the genalogies in the Hebrew Bible, e.g., 1 Chronicles 1-9); when the modern state of Israel was founded, they had to decide whoe *really* is a Jew. And since the only parent you can be SURE is actually your parent is your mother, that was how the decision got made.
Doesn’t the maternal descent rule go back to the second century?
https://www.templeemanuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cohen_Origins_Matrilineal_Principle_1985.pdf
Ah, if Shaye Cohen says so, then absolutely YES. He’s the real expert. I’ll have to read the article.
Since as you’ve indicated the Moabites were looked down upon by the people of Israel, why do you think this book had such favor with the Israelites? Or will that information be in your next post?
Probably because it shows David’s lineage; plus it’s a fantastic story written by an Israelite in Hebrew.
I think the encounter after the party is clearly sexual, but it’s fun to listen to conservative believers bend over backward to make it seem like an innocent thing. If you read the Old Testament there are a lot of sexual indiscretions woven into the stories; this one is no different. The other interesting thing is that Ruth is thought of as saintly for telling Naomi that she will adopt her god. Not because YHWH is clearly the best god or only true god, but because he is Naomi’s god, and Ruth is devoted to Naomi (not necessarily YHWH). What if Naomi had worshipped Baal – would Ruth be commended for then worshipping Baal with her? I think not.
I’m logged in, but the post ends “Among the distinctive features of this account is the fact that the main character is ‘
Usually that happens when someone needs to renew their subscription. Click on Help and write a note to Support and Diane will straighten it out for you.
Is the “uncover his feet” euphemism contested at all by christian scholars? This was not part of the Sunday school version of the story.
I think it’s the standard interpretation, outside of conservative evangelical/fundamantalist circles.
I love the book of Ruth and am glad to get your insights into it. I read it some years ago, and as one example of its effect on me I now find myself very fond of Moab, Utah :-). I have noticed that there’s also a book of Esther in the Old Testament; I hope you’ll discuss that next as it’s had my attention — one other book named after a woman, is it as endearing as Ruth? — but I have not had the chance to read it yet.
I’m posting on it! Another great read.
I do not think many of the stories in OT are written as historical sequential genealogical stories, not even about “the chosen people”. For me, it is about allegory about the spiritual relationship between man and God.
Even in the book of Ruth, where the main character is one of the four women in Matthew’s 14 + 14 + 14 genealogy, at a time when as they say nobody knew that the woman had any genealogical procreation role, the story makes no sense to me as a historical book. But it gives more sense from an allegorical perspective.
It’s easy for me to take the late Bishop Spong’s idea of the Book of Ruth (like other books of other prophets) that it is a non-literal fiction meant to tell a spiritual story about the relationship between God and man, carefully woven into the intended the narratives, the patterns, the settings and the careful use of archetypal characters.
Bart,
I recently join your blog, I’m from the twin Island of St Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean, I have had large difficulties with the challenge of understand is Psalms 110 really written by Kind David or it is not and later scribes tampered with the text to prove a theological point. Can you shed some light on this Matter.
regards,
I don’t think the Psalm could be written by King David because it is written ABOUT a king (the LORD speaks to “my Lord”). I”m afraid I don’t know off hand the detailed arguments about when the Psalmwas written; the mention of Melchizedek shows knowlege of Genesis 14, which I assume come from the J source that MAY have been written by David’s time, but almost always is dated later. The Psalm DOES look like it was written during the monarchy in the south (Zion), as a psalm celebrating a great king (Hezekiah?) who will be empowered by God to overthrow the other nations. And so the “model” king is of course David, making it natural that it was applied to him. My personal view is that we don’t know much of anything about the historical David, let alone whether he was literate. But if he was and did write Psalms, this doesn’t seem to have been one of them, since he would not be praising a different king.
Surely Ruth was written to counter the emphasis on ethnic purity and YHWH-cult piety that emerged early in the Persian period. Nehemiah claims to have forced divorce on Jews that had married Moabites. The story reminded the Jews that David had Moabite ancestry, and that she was a devotee to YHWH. Ruth is one of four women Matthew lists in Jesus’s genealogy, all associated with sexual impropriety, perhaps to counter condemnation of Mary getting pregnant out of wedlock.
I remember hearing a SS lesson on Ruth, in which the noble character of Naomi and Ruth was praised. I remarked that they must have been reading a different story than I read. I asked what did they think would happen if they told their daughter to sneak in and lie down with a man at night, and do whatever he told her to do. No one in the room had ever understood the plot of the story.
I think the OT is full of fascinating short stories, many embedded in Judges – 2 Kings. They reflect a quite different view of God and of faith. Bart, I hope you highlight several. Consider featuring Judge Jephthah.
I have read your earlier posts (eg Sept 27, 2012) where you state, in relation to Isaiah 7:14 and the prophecy of the virgin birth, that the ‘virgin’ in question is a young woman who has already conceived a child. You emphasise that Isaiah does not say that she *will* conceive; he says she has *already* conceived.
This point is one I find very persuasive as far as the prophecy applying only to Isaiah’s times and not to Jesus.
However, when I consult various translations of this passage they generally seem to use the future tense and your interpretation appears not to be supported. From my limited knowledge of Greek it looks like even the Septuagint puts this in the future.
Since I do not read Hebrew and cannot delve into this myself, please is there any additional information/sources you can give me should I wish to use your position in debate?
Yes, the Greek is a different story. The Hebrew uses the “perfect” tense for the verb, which refers to action that is “already completed.” It’s not hte same as our English past tense, but it does mean that the verb refers to something that is or has been, not something that is in process or yet to be (roughly speaking). It probably depends on which trasnslations you’re looking at and whether the translatros have been influenced by the use of the passage in Matthew.
I believe it was Joel Baden who said that he thinks Ruth was probably written to counter the extreme ethnic purity espoused in Ezra and Nehemiah. We probably can’t know that for sure but it would make sense.
Here is another readable discussion of “uncovering the feet” with opinions from rabbinical commentators.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-did-ruth-and-boaz-do-on-the-threshing-floor/
“And you may remember the attitude of Moses toward the idolatrous Moabites in Numbers 25:1–5.”
But 25:1-5 was the JE version concerning the Baal-Peor incident, no? Yet the following verses (P) show Moses failing to act and the Aaronids killing the *Midianite* woman and her Israelite lover because they defiled the place of worship.
So, when did it become OK for Jews to marry Moabites? And how does the authorship of Ruth fit into the documentary hypothesis?
My sense is that it wasn’t a chronological difference of when but a difference of one person’s/groups view over another’s. And Ruth didn’t play a role in the documentary hypothesis.