Loading...In my previous post I talked about the book of Ruth, a gem of a short-story in the Hebrew Bible. Now that I’ve explained how the plot works, I’d like to make just a couple of points about what it is trying to teach, starting with a comment about an episode that many readers over the years have found rather intriguing.
It is definitely one of the confusing and suggestive passages in the book. It comes in chapter 3, where Ruth and her rich (and drunk) relative Boaz end up asleep together on the threshing floor, and in the dark Ruth “stealthily uncovered his feet.” The next day he arranges to marry her. What???
Different cultures, using their different languages, use different euphemisms for sexual organs. In older English literature, for example, a man’s penis is sometimes referred to as his “member.” Hebrew had its own euphemism for genitals. They were called
You don’t want to miss this one. Join to see more. Who knew this kind of thing was in the Bible?? Click here for membership options
Hi Dr Ehrman!
If one is does not believe that Jesus was an apocalypticist, what would the overall point of 2 Peter be? I thought that Peter was reassuring the church since the end had not yet come?
Thank you!
YEs, 2 Peter is definitely apocalyptic and you’re right about why he is writing. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus himself was. 2 Peter is writing about 120 cE (and it’s not by Peter). Lots of followrs of Jesus in 120 CE were taking stands on things that were different from those of JEsus himself. (Just as a “Republican” of 1960 was not necessarily on the same side of things as Lincoln a century earlier)
Perhaps not totally on topic, but what use would seraphim have for genitals? To engender little baby seraphim?
I suppose so! The point, though, is that they are humanoid, like other divine beings in the ancient world (at least many parts of it)
From a historian’s perspective – not counting the literary merits – which is worse: The Da Vinci Code or Killing Jesus?
Tough question. A bit of apples and oranges. I’ve thought about it and am not sure!
Could you do a bit on the Diatesseron which, if I understand things correctly, was the OG “smoosh all the Gospels into one”?
It’s one of the most complex issues in all of early Xn studies. But I can at least explain it. Tatian, mid 2nd century, took the four Gospels and rewrote them into one long account. The term Diatessaron literally means “through the Four”. HIs versino becaome the mainn Gospel used by Christians in Syria for centuries (rather than the four “separated” Gospels, as thyey called them.
So how does Tatian resolve issues like whether Jesus cleansed the Temple at the beginning of his mission or at the end, or what day Jesus was killed on? How many times did Peter deny Jesus? The contradictions you have pointed out.
I wish we knew. We don’t have the Diatessaron any longer. IT hasn’t been passed down to us.
Did Ruth almost not make it into the Hebrew Bible?
Was it only included due to the tie into Ruth being David’s great grandmother?
It was revered for as long as we’ve known about it, but it was included among the “Writings” which were the last books finally to be included.
Incest and fornication. Reasons the Bible should be classified NSFW.
God and sex are so messy. God supposedly condemns the sexual wickedness of Sodom but proclaims not a peep about incest between Lot and his daughters. Formication by Ruth turns out to be praiseworthy.
Seems to me that consistent divine messaging about sex via Jewish and Christian bibles does not exist. Therefore Scripture can not be taken as the end all be all for guidance in sexual matters.
Formication: a hallucination of insects crawling under or on one’s skin.
Your mother’s (or grandmother’s) likely kitchen countertop? Formica. = ant in Latin.
What word did they use when they wanted to actually refer to the feet?
When the Bible says that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples, what did he actually wash?
Same word. Just as in English we use references to certain body parts to refer to genitalia. Think about it.
A few other verses that support the idea that “feet” was a euphemism for genitalia: 1 Samuel 24:3 says “Saul went in [into a cave] to relieve himself” (NASB); it is literally, “to cover his feet.” In 2 Kings 18:27 it says “…to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?” “Urine” is actually “water of the feet.” But people shouldn’t act surprised that Ruth would do such a thing. Remember that of all of David’s children it was the product of an adulterous and murderous relationship that became the next king of Israel. Judah getting his daughter-in-law pregnant was also pretty scandalous; but to be fair, he thought she was a prostitute.
Could you please tell me what in hell the divine is so offended about genitalia, which it created supposedly? Did it not create the sex act? How about all the crazy sex acts?
Another euphemism for male genitals is the “thigh” – as when Abraham wants to send his servant back to his homeland to find a wife for Isaac. He says to the servant, “Put your hand, pray, under my thigh . . . ” (Gen. 24:2). According to Alter, the twelfth century scholar Abraham ibn Ezra noted making the oath-taker place his (I assume it would have to be “his”!) hand on one’s genitals was a known practice of the time.
Adds a whole new dimension to feet being made of clay.
Re Dankoh’s suggestion that ‘thigh’ is a euphemism for the genitals, what, then, do you make of Revelation 19:16 “And he hath … on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”? !!!
Thank you !, this blog membership is worth every penny of what I pay!
For me, the book of Ruth is good on various levels, and also as a spiritual allegory of hope, a transformation from famine, death all alone in a foreign land as among the most vulnerable as unprotected women to the field of wealth through the main character towards inclusion, wealth, prosperity / life and towards monarchy, here as the royal line (David).
For me this also serves as a spiritual story of hope, faith in a better future, and our way back to oneness with God which for me is a deeper theme in so many of the OT books.
If “feet” meant genitals, then what word did the Israelites use for actual feet?
Feet. Same word. Just as we today refer to parts of male and female genitalia with other body parts. But to avoid getting into those particuar details (think about it though!), there is, e.g., “cheeks” to refer to two sides of the buttocks.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do you have any book recommendations on the OT from more liberal, scholarly perspective? Specifically, the historicity of Moses leading Israel to Palestine and how Juddeism was started etc?
If you’re interested specifically in how historical the accounts of the Old Testament are, you might be interesetd especialyly in the books of William Dever. If you want historial introductions to the Hebrew Bible generally, I’d suggest John Collins, Introducton to the Hebrew Bible. I have a shorter treatment in my book The Bible: A Historical and LIterary Introduction.
We need a like button on this blog. 🙂
There is a ranking option!
The scroll of Ruth has fascinated me for quite some time now. I studied the text together with a friend, paying close attention to the language and the resonances with other biblical themes and stories, most strikingly the story of Lot and his daughters, whence the nations of Moav and Ammon, and the story of Yehuda and Tamar. Boaz descends from Yehuda, Ruth from Moav, Lot’s son. In both stories female sexuality is used for a laudable purpose: the continuation of the human race in the case of Lot’s daughters, and the fulfilment of the yibbum requirement and the continuation of Yehuda’s family in Tamar’s case. The parallels are compelling but so are the differences. The earlier episodes involved deception and seduction. Ruth is clearly sent by Naomi with a similar mission but when Boaz asks “Who are you?”, Ruth does not whisper “Shhh, just come here…” but declares that she is Ruth the Moaviyyah and she demands recognition and matrimony, not just impregnation. I feel that this theme needs exploration.
Great observations and question. As to the question: it’s all because of the wider context. She and Naomi need a male protector/provider, and marriage is the only certain way to get it. She’s not after a baby but a husband.
Another striking linguistic resonance. is Ruth 2:11
And Boaz reacted and said to her: it has been told to me what you did for your mother-in-law after your husband died: you left your father and your mother and your birthplace and you went to a people you did not now yesterday and the the day before.
Compare to Gen 12:1
Then the L-RD said to Avram: Go you from your land, from your birthplace and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you.
This is not coincidence. Perhaps the subtext is that, just as the origins of the people go back to the Mesopotamian, the origins of the house of David go back to the Moabite Girl.
Note the death of Machlon that precedes Ruth’s journey, and the death of Lot’s father Haran at the end of Gen 11, just prior to Avram’s journey.
This text is multi-layered. Just reading it as the charming novella (that it also is!) ignores its function in the Hebrew canon.
What was the majority attitude towards pre-marital sex among ancient Israelites? Would Ruth sleeping with Boaz to get herself a husband have been controversial?
Unfortunately we don’t have records of what most Israelites would have thought at the time. The susual approach to finding out is to see what the Bible has to say, but that’s kind of like seeing what the legal code of the U.S. and its localities say about, for instance, jaywalking, speeding, paying taxes, and committing adultery in order to know what Americans actual attitudes are…. Within the context of the story, it appears taht having sex with the possibility of pregnancy is a very good reason to get married sooner rather than later.
It’s possible that having sex with the intent of it’s being a marital act was tantamount to a declaration of marriage. there’s actually no description of a marriage ritual in Scripture. There was also the pilegesh – concubine – who was explicitly not married and who’s function was to provide sex.
Possibly. But, well, he was drunk (as the story stresses!)
I discovered Dr Bart Ehrman lectures and debates a week ago. Just joined his Blog. I’m a typical average Christian believer with some Hebrew Roots background. Basically I just know the typical Bible stories. I just read the blog about Ruth. Ok please try putting my hat on. I’m a bit shocked on the conversation and meaning of the word “feet”. My first thought is, what did I get myself into. Is this for real. You mean Jesus washed the genitals of the 12 disciples? Ok the shock is over. I know everyone can response. But could all reframe and allow me to ask for Dr Ehrman explanation. Thank you.
Ha! No, I’m not saying that every time the word always means genitals. It does in some contexts. Just as when we say he “kicked the bucket” we don’t mean that every time someone kicks a bucket they die. (!)
Personally, I find this story very moving and relatable. A vulnerable young woman seduces — respectfully, and with the best of intentions, but still, seduces — a man she likes and who clearly cares about her. But they are not married, and are not even engaged.
Most religious groups would strongly condemn a woman who seeks a husband by sleeping with a man she likes and hoping they will later get married (even if, truth be told, this may be a part of how most married women in the congregation got their husbands). I’m sure this book is quite a challenge to use pastorally! I can imagine a pastor or rabbi advising a young woman: “You like him, and you’d like to marry him? Seduce him! It could lead to a beautiful marriage, and it’s Biblical!” (I imagine that rabbi or pastor would be run out of town.)
Why is there almost unanimous agreement that there was sexual intercourse in the barn? It does not have to be read that way. Sure, Naomi sent Ruth on a seduction mission: bathing, dressing, etc. She saw her as a proxy for herself: וירדתי (וְיָרַדְתְּ) and ושכבתי (וְשָׁכָבְתְּ).
Ruth did NOT want to seduce Boaz:
* וּפָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ עַל-אֲמָתְךָ כִּי גֹאֵל אָתָּה To spread one’s wing implies matrimony – in the context of being a redeemer with full matrimonial status – not a partner in the dead of night.
* וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ in chapter 4. This is marriage and full marital relations. Biblical Hebrew does not need euphemisms to express the act of sexual intimacy: “he came into her” is the phrase here.
Remember how Moabite females are portrayed in the story of Ba’al Peor (Numbers 25:1-5). Ruth refused to weaponise her body. She rectified what went wrong when Lot was willing to sacrifice his daughters – when rape was used against the stranger. And Boaz rectified what Yehuda had refused Tamar.
If you miss these resonances, you have not understood why this novella is in the canon.
I’d say that explaining what a story means is not the same as explaining why it later got into the canon. It’s the same issue, of course, with the Song of Songs. I’d agree that Hebrew does not need euphemisms. But it still uses plenty of them. It all depends on the author, the context, the effect that is sought, the cleverness of the story, teh subtleties, and so on.
I never understood the uncovering of the feet until now! I love the story of Ruth and Naomi. I have always been touched by the idea that a young, defenseless woman, an outsider, an immigrant, would stay with her poor widowed mother-in-law to help and protect her, even though catastrophe and death possibly awaits the two of them in a land where they have nothing and no one. And then, the young woman begets the line of the greatest King of Israel. It is comforting that even so long, ancient people found this story as important and as meaningful as a lot of people do in the present time. All humans have more in common, through all of time and space, than not.
But I sort of don’t understand something: Is the story outside the accepted group of writings about Samuel and Saul and David, and is only a later creation just added to the story line? Like, did a totally different writer come up with the story? I’m probably not reading the historicity described in the post well enough.
Thank you!
Yes, it’s an independent story by some other (unknown) author.
julius- that is a a very insightful and moving commentary..