EXEGETICAL ASSIGNMENT ON RUTH 2
Syntactical Question:
#2 Who is being praised or commended for showing dsj to the living and the dead in 2:20a, Boaz or Yahweh?
The verse reads as follows: "May he be blessed of the LORD who has not abandoned his kindness to the living and to the dead." The issue in this verse has to do with the antecedent of the pronoun "who." If the antecedent is Boaz, to whom Naomi is speaking of in verse 19 and in the pronoun "he" in this verse, then it is he whom she is praising for his kindness to her and to her dead husband and sons. However, if the antecedent of "who" is the LORD, which immediately precedes the LORD, then it is He whom she is praising for not ceasing to show kindness to her and her dead husbands and sons.
It is significant to note that of the most accepted English versions of the Bible, only the NIV translates the passage with Boaz as the antecedent. The NAS, KJV, RSV, and the LB are all ambiguous, but imply that it is the LORD who is the antecedent.
Glueck argues for Boaz being the antecedent on the basis of the parallelism found in Ruth 1:8 and in 2 Sam. 2:5. It is the doing of "kindness" with the living and the dead that is predicated on humans, and in 2 Sam. 2:5 the antecedent of the "who" clause cannot be Yahweh but only the human subject involved (Bush, 135). Likewise, Bush concludes that Boaz is the antecedent (p. 136) on the basis of Hebrew grammar, that is in the strong possibility that the "who" is to be taken as causal connective "since" making the grounds explicit as many translations do in 2 Sam. 2:5. Furthermore, Bush argues that the idiom µ[ime bzľ[; in Gen. 24:27 is not a synonym of ta bzľ[; in Ruth 2:20. The preposition invariably means "from" involving a sense of motion, direction, action, or source, and he cross references HALOT, 840 to make his case (Bush, 136).
A good case is made for Yahweh being the antecedent of "who" by Sakenfeld in that the grounds that Boaz’s actions of allowing Ruth to glean a few stalks can hardly be regarded as dsh to the dead husbands or to Ruth herself. However, though the NIV translates it with Boaz as the antecedent, it is difficult to argue with the fact that the rest of the major English translations point to Yahweh as the antecedent. The BHS word order warrants this, but most of all the context of the passage points to Yahweh here. In 1:20 for instance, Naomi is clear in her belief that Yahweh has dealt bitterly with her; she was full, now she’s empty. She knows that all that has happened to her is from the LORD. Now, giving her the benefit of the doubt, why would she give any credit to anyone other than the LORD when good things happen to her. It appears that she is thrilled about Boaz, but in keeping with her belief that God had brought calamity on her, it is safe to assume that she would equally believe He had brought blessings to her. The word she uses, dsh, also would attest this this even though it could also be used as a word for Boaz. Conclusion: based on the majority of translations and the context of Naomi’s state of mind, the antecedent of "who" in this case is Yahweh. The constructions found in both Genesis 24:27 and Ruth 4:14 both attest to this conclusion.
Lexical Question:
#3 Boaz is identified by the narrator by several terms in Ruth 2:1. Explain the meaning of the following terms and phrases.
The Kethiv reading ([d'yum]) is parsed as a noun meaning a "close associate or intimate friend." It is used six other times in the OT. The Qere reading is parsed as a masculine singular noun from [d'mo which only occurs here and in Proverbs 7:4. In that context it is clear that it is speaking of a "relative." The preferred reading here is the Qere due to the fact that in 2:20 Naomi calls Boaz "a relative of ours." He is also called a lan to Naomi and Ruth elsewhere, a term meaning "relative," or one who is obligated to come to the aid of family members in need (Bush, 100). Boaz is introduced slowly beginning in this passage, but the progression is unmistakable later in the narrative, so it is conclusive to render this word as "relative." The story is highly dependent on it as it unfolds.
The meaning of the phrase lyIj' r/BGI vyai in Ruth 2:1 is "mighty man of valor." The term r/BGI means "mighty" (BDB, 150) while lyIj has a range of meanings from wealthy, strong, powerful, etc. The exact meaning here has to do with the context, and this context is not about a military warrior, so it most likely does not have that connotation here. In the other contexts where it is used it has to do with wealth and/or ability, but it always refers to someone with a good social and moral standing in their respective societies. In Ruth 2:1 it probably refers to Boaz’s wealth as well as his social standing among the people. He was a "man of great wealth and reputation."
The phrase here is similar in various passages… Gen. 47:6 (competent men); Ex. 18:21,25 (men who are reputable and able to lead); 1 Kings 1:42, 52 (a trustworthy man); 1 Chron. 26:8 (men with physical strength); 1 Sam. 10:26 (mighty warriors); 1 Chron. 9:13 (men who could serve God in their respective positions).
In Ruth 2:1 it is evident that Boaz is not being portrayed as a valiant military warrior. Rather, he is a man of wealth (he owns a field and has servants) and reputation. His treatment of Naomi and Ruth – and his servants testifies to the fact that he is an honorable man. In the final conclusion of the book Boaz is also in the line of the Messiah, an honor that surpasses all others.
There is a second description of Boaz in 2:1. He is called Jl,m,yliaÔ tj'P'v]Mimi ("from the clan of Elimelech"). This is information given by the narrator, and it contributes to the plot development of the book in a handful of ways. In chapter one, Elimelech is introduced as coming from Bethlehem of Judah. This is important because it places his family in the line of the Messiah who is from the tribe of Judah. Though Boaz is not mentioned in this chapter Elimelech is, and Boaz is later connected with him as evidenced by the phrase Jl,m,yliaÔ tj'P'v]Mimi . In chapter two Boaz is introduced as a wealthy and reputable man (see above), and it is seen that because he is related to Elimelech he too is being developed as a man in the line of the coming Messiah. In chapter three, because the stage has been set for who he is, namely Jl,m,yliaÔ tj'P'v]Mimi , he is now being groomed by the narrator to be the kinsman-redeemer for Naomi and her deceased husband Elimelech. He is portrayed in chapter three as a worthy man, due his reputation in that he does not take advantage of Ruth nor illegally redeem her because he is not the closest of legal kinsman, there is another. In chapter four, Boaz, as Jl,m,yliaÔ tj'P'v]Mimi is able to redeem Elimelech’s land, marry Ruth, and become the father of Obed, the father of Jesse, the father of David, who was the father of Jesus the Messiah. Only be being Jl,m,yliaÔ tj'P'v]Mimi could he have attained such a status in this narrative. As Bush has stated, "Though it is obvious after the previous statement that Boaz is Naomi’s relative on her husband’s side, it is used for emphasis, and literarily to provide an inclusio with verse 3" (page 101). The "clan" spoken of here was a social unit that stood between the tribe and the extended family. The clan was very important in that it set the bounds of recognized kinship and formed the basic endogamic unit of society (Bush, 101).
Rhetorical Question:
#8 There is a wordplay in 2:10 involving the verb ynIreyKih'l] ("that you pay attention to me") and the noun hY:rik]n: ("foreigner") in the statement…
hY:rik]n: ykinśa;wÒ ynIreyKih'l] òyn<y[eB] ÷je ytiax;m; ['WDm'
("why am I finding favor in your eyes that you pay attention to me, even though I am a foreign woman?"). The root of ynIreyKih'l is rk'n: and the root of hY:rik]n is yrik]n:. The roots of these two words are alike, and there is a wordplay involved here. Bush notes that one is metaphoric, playing on the two opposing meanings of the root in ynIreyKih'l which is "to recognize or pay attention to" and hY:rik]n , a "foreign woman," and the other parasonantic, playing on the recurring consonants n and k in the three words (Bush, 123). He goes on to note that the circumstantial clause hY:rik]n: ykinśa;wÒ is clearly concessive in force, "though I am a foreigner," as such clauses often are (123).The rhetorical effect/point that is created by the wordplay is the fact that a man of Boaz’s status would actually take the time to "pay attention" to a "foreign woman" of Ruth’s status. He was wealthy and reputable, of the family of Elimelech. Ruth, on the other hand, was a woman, a widow, and a foreigner. The two words are connected here because of what Boaz is actually doing. He pays attention to this woman, and the wordplay is a poetical device used to add emphasis to what he is doing with regard to his treatment of this woman who does not deserve it. It is a nice parallel to what Christ has done for sinners. He is perfect, and we are wretched sinners. The fact that he would "pay attention to us" as "foreigners" with the status of widowed women is a reflection, albeit not intended by the author, of what Christ did for us. Boaz’s actions foreshadow what Christ has done for sinners.
Text Criticism Question
A. There are three text-critical differences between the MT and the LXX. The first has to do with the MT having the word for "house" (
tyIB'h'). The LXX does not even hint at this word. Second, the LXX says nothing of Ruth "sitting" as the MT does with the word HT;b]vi. Third, the LXX contains a negative particle ou\ (not) where the MT doesn’t; instead the MT has her resting. Finally, the LXX has Ruth working constantly, and the MT has her taking a break in a house or shelter out in the field.B. The verb
HT;bov] in the MT is a qal infinitive construct from bvy with 3fs pronoun suffix. The LXX HT;b]v; would be a feminine noun from tbv meaning an "abstinence from labor" (BDB, 992). The variant here is whether she sat down in a house for a little while (MT) to rest or did not cease from her work as the LXX says. The more difficult reading, as it is less commonly seen, is the LXX version. However, the LXX version makes far more sense in the context of what the servant is telling Boaz about Ruth and the fact that there could hardly be a house in the middle of the field, though this is a possibility.C. In explaining the syntax of
f[;m] tyIB'h' HT;b]vi hz˛ ("this her sitting in the house a little"), the syntactical function of hz in relation to f[;m] tyIB'h' HT;b]vi is in apposition according to BDB (260). The syntactical function of the 3fs suffix on the infinitive construct HT;b]v would be an adverbial genitive. The syntactical function of the noun tyIB'h would be an adverbial accusative.D. Given that the LXX offers a Greek reading that possibly reflects an earlier Hebrew text tradition it is possible that the MT reading is an inferior text. The simple solution, though without any proof from the text-types, is that the LXX had a better text to work from, and the reading, instead of
tyIB'h "house" is actually hdvh "the field." It is also possible that the LXX was working from the same textual tradition as what the MT reflects, and it has been paraphrased in order to make better sense. It appears that the latter is the case due to the fact that the MT has the more difficult reading. It is virtually impossible with the extant evidence to make sense of any scribal error in the MT.Some have said that
tyIB'h in the MT refers to "a hut or shelter" out in the field, but this term is not used elsewhere in the OT as such. It is clear, however, that the normal use of tyIB'h is not in use here as one could hardly expect to find a house in the middle of a field. However, from the context of 2:14 it is evident that something was there in which Boaz, the reapers, and Ruth all sat down and ate a meal together. In verse 15 they all rise again to do more work, so it is possible there was a house there. The term is used in many modern English versions (NIV, REB, TEV) as "a shelter or hut." This usage is being fair to the MT, but not to the actual meaning of the term tyIB'h. Some have suggested that this term is in line with one of the structures found in Is. 1:8 ("booth in a vineyard, hut in a garden"). This structure would look something like a lean-to shelter used by farmers and watchmen during the harvest. As stated before, this would be an uncommon usage of the term, but one that would make sense. In sum, the MT has the more difficult reading, and because of this it makes sense that it is the better one.E. It makes a great deal of sense to regard to LXX reading as better since it makes far more sense in the context. However, the more difficult reading rendered by the MT is to be preferred. It can work, and due to its difficulty, the LXX translators probably changed it to the easier reading.
F. I believe the original reading is what is found in the MT as
f[;m] tyIB'h' HT;b]vi hz˛
. This is a tough reading, and the word for "house" might better be translated as "hut," something the OT knows nothing of. However, given that this is the more difficult reading, and given the context of verses 14 and 15 where the whole work crew eats a meal and then resumes their work, it is to be preferred. A possible paraphrase of Ruth 2:7 might be: "she [Ruth] went into the field to glean, and she has been working hard all day, though she did take a rest in the shelter for a brief break."Ruth 2:14-23 Translation
14 And Boaz said (Qal pret. 3fs
rma) to her at meal time, "Come here (Qal imperative, fs vgn) and eat (Qal perf. 2fs lka) from the bread and dip (Qal perf. 2fs lbf) your piece in the wine. And she sat (Qal pret. 3fs bvy) beside the reapers and he passed (Qal pret. 3ms fbx) to her parched grain, and she ate (Qal pret. 3fs lka) and was full (Qal pret. 3fs [bc), and she had some left over (Hiph pret. 3fs rty).15 And she arose (Qal pret. 3fs
m/q) to glean (piel inf. constr. fql) and Boaz commanded (Piel pret. 3ms hwx) the young men saying (Qal inf. constr. rma), "She will (Piel imperfect 3fs fql) also among the sheaves and you are not to touch her (Hiph imperfect 2mp mlk).16 And another thing, pull out (Qal inf. abs.
llv) for her from among the bundles and leave (Qal perf. 2mp ) them, and she will glean (Piel perf. 3fs fql), and you are not to rebuke her (Qal imp. 2mp r[g).17 And she gleaned (Qal pret. 3fs
fql) in the field until evening, and she beat out (Qal pret. 3fs fbj) that which she gleaned (Piel perf. 3fs fql), and it was (Qal pret. 3ms hyh) about an ephah of barley.18 And she lifted up (Qal pret. 3fs
acn) and went (Qal pret. 3fs a/b) into the city and she showed (Qal pret. 3fs har) her mother-in-law that which she gleaned (Piel perf. 3fs fql), and she brought (Hiph pret, 3fs axy) and she gave (Qal pret. 3fs ntn) to her that which she had left over (Hiph perf. 3fs rty) from being filled.19 And her mother-in-law said (Qal pret. 3fs
rma) to her, "Where did you glean (Piel perf. 2fs fql) today and where did you work? May the one noticing (Hiph ptcp masc + 2fs suff rkn) you be (Qal perf. 2fs hyh) blessed" (Qal pass ptcp Jrb). So she told (Hiph pret. 3fs dgn) to her mother-in-law with whom she had worked (Qal perf. 3fs hc[), and she said (Qal pret. 3fs rma), "The name of the man with whom I worked (Qal perf. 3fs hc[) today is Boaz."20 And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, "Blessed (Qal pass ptcp 3ms
Jrb) be he by the LORD, who has not forsaken (Qal perf. 3ms bz[) his kindness to the living and to the dead (Qal act. Ptcp twm). And Naomi said (Qal pret. 3fs rma) to her, "The man Boaz is a near kinsman (Qal act. Ptcp ms lag) to us."21 Then Ruth, the Moabitess, said (Qal pret. 3fs
rma), "He also said (Qal pret. 3ms rma) to me, "Stay close (Qal perf. 2fs qbd) to my servants until they finish (Piel perf. 3cp hlk) all of my harvest.22 And Naomi said (Qal pret. 3fs
rma ) to Ruth, her daughter-in-law, "It is better, my daughter, for you to go out (Qal imperfect 2fs axy) with his maidens and not be molested (Qal imperfect 3mp [gp) in another field.23 And she kept close (Qal pret. 3fs
qbd) to Boaz’s maidens to glean (Piel inf. constr. fql) until the end of the barley harvest and wheat harvest. And she lived (Qal pret. 3fs bvy) with her mother-in-law.
Ruth 2 Plot Analysis