Ruth 4 Exegetical Assignment
#1 Rhetorical Question:
The phrase ynImol]a' ynIl¿P] refers to the nearer kinsman in Ruth 4:1, but this is not his real name. This is an idiom that literally means "a certain (unnamed) one." It is used elsewhere in 1 Sam. 21:3 and 2 Kings 6:8, and in these passages it has to do with places rather than a particular person as in Ruth 4:1. It is clear in all three passages that the narrator does not want to reveal the places or name of the individual.
(2) It is not likely that Boaz did not know this man’s name given that they not only lived in a small town together, but the nearer kinsman was also a relative of Boaz, and Boaz knew exactly who he was.
(3) It is likely that Boaz did address the man by name, but it is the narrator who omits it. Up to this point in the Book of Ruth the narrator has painstakingly named a handful of names and stressed them accordingly. By failing to give the proper name of the nearer kinsman, the narrator simply attempts to put this person in an unfavorable light. Consequently, the choice of the expression ynImol]a' ynIl¿P] is an appropriate one, and one that is best translated into English as "So-in-So."
(4) The Book of Ruth is filled with names, names that are repeated over and over in some instances. The avoidance of using the name of this nearer kinsman by the narrator most likely has to do with character. Up to this point the narrator has used the names of people he wants to be remembered and revered. Given that this nearer kinsman appears to be a selfish, self-serving one, the narrator most likely didn’t want his name to go down in a history book filled with noble people and their noble names. It isn’t clear whether or not any of the names given in the narrative are original names given to these people by their parents. The narrator has been playing a name-game all through the story, and his word play on the nearer kinsman is appropriate in light of this. (b) The omission of the nearer kinsman’s name is heightened rhetorically by the contrasting blessing in 4:14, "may his name be famous in Israel" because, once again, the narrator is focusing, to some extent, on names of godly people. The nearer kinsman’s name is omitted, but the name of the offspring of Ruth and Boaz is proclaimed to be famous in Israel. This is heightened by the genealogy of David at the end of the narrative. The narrator seems to be keeping this man’s name out of the story because his name has no business being listed among the elite characters, along with their impeccable character, the narrator is attempting to portray. (c) The character of the nearer kinsman is selfish as evidenced in 4:6, but the character of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz is one that looks out for the other. Each one of these main characters has been portrayed as selfless, only looking out for the welfare of the other. This ynImol]a' ynIl¿P] has a function in the narrative, however, in that he contrasts the main characters and goes down in history as an unnamed man who passed up the blessing to not only be in the line of David, but also in the line of Christ.
(5) It appears from the way the narrator treats this man, all translations that render ynImol]a' ynIl¿P] as "friend" or "calling him by name" are not the best of translations. The English equivalent to this phrase is "so-in-so," so the best translations would be the NJPS and the NET Bible who render the phrase as such.
#4 Historical-Cultural Question:
Though there are a couple of possibilities with regard to what went on in the selling of the field here. The first possibility as outlined by Bush (pages 208-15) is that the transaction is a case of pre-emption. This is the clear implication of verse three that says Naomi is "selling" the use of the field of Elimelek and of verse 5a that says the field was to be acquired from Naomi. In this scenario Elimelek did not sell his field before leaving for Moab, and Naomi possesses the right to use the field of her deceased husband which she is now offering for sale through Boaz. This, however, makes no sense in light of the fact that Naomi and Ruth have been living in poverty, gleaning in fields that don’t belong to them.
What appears to be the most sound explanation is that it is a case of redemption. When Elimelek and his family originally went to Moab, he sold his field to someone. Now that Naomi has returned, she, through Boaz, is attempting to redeem the land by buying it back. This is a case of redemption such as found in Leviticus 25:25. Naomi has the right, as the heir of Elimelek, since both her sons have died, to buy back her land by repurchasing it from the buyers. She has no means, however, and she transfers that right to her nearest kinsman. Boaz calls upon this nearer kinsman, but he refuses. Boaz, as the next in line as redeemer, then buys the land back for Naomi. As Bush has said, this view is dependent on a nuance of two verbs unattested in biblical Hebrew. The verbs rkm "to sell, deliver over" and hnq "to acquire, buy" in this context would have to mean "to dispose of (the rights to)" and "to acquire (the rights to)" respectively. The semantic range of these words does encompass this possibility and "characterizes the form of the transaction, but it does not specify its substance" (Bush, 213). In this sense, then, the verb hrkm cannot be parsed as a simple past tense verb, supposing that Naomi sold the field sometime in the past. This could hardly have been possible to do from Moab following the days after her husband’s death. She could not have done it following her return, because she and Ruth have been living as poverty-stricken women. The verb hrkm, therefore must be taken as an "instantaneous perfect," translated as "Naomi, who has come back from the land of Moab, is now disposing of her right of the piece of land which belonged to our brother Elimelek." What is being bought here then, is the right to buy the field from Naomi. What is being sold is the right to sell the land. It is clear from the passage at hand that they were buying the field from Naomi, but the truth of the matter is, they were buying it from Ruth who was the wife of the legal heir Mahlon, who is now dead. Boaz, however, did not bring her name into it because to introduce it would have been to destroy his shrewd plan of introducing her into the mix at a later time.
The issue of the field had to come up in the first place because Boaz is thinking of and considering Naomi, and he also wants to marry Ruth. The field had little or no bearing on him personally, but since has been considering the life of Naomi, it seems reasonable that he should put off a marriage to Ruth and attempt to gain back what her husband had sold. In this scenario Boaz is in keeping with his character and his love for Naomi. He could have just married Ruth when she met him at the threshing floor and been through with it. He, however, has Naomi in mind, and he wants to regain her loss for her. When he speaks to the nearer redeemer, in his shrewdness, he dangles Elimelek’s field as a carrot in front of the man. When he introduces Ruth to the equation the nearer redeemer rejects his proposal, opening the way for Boaz to not only marry Ruth but to legally gain back the field her husband once owned. Now Boaz is able to buy the field back for Naomi and marry Ruth in order to carry out the name of Elimelek’s family. Had the field not been introduced Boaz could have just married Ruth not claimed the field. Had he done this, the nearer redeemer, whose character is not set in a good light, would most certainly have bought the field from Naomi. The field then is the crux of the situation.
This whole transaction is in keeping with Boaz’s promise to Ruth in 3:11, 13 where he promised to do all that she requested. Could it be that Ruth made a request that he marry her and buy the field that Naomi might have told her about? This seems possible, otherwise Boaz might have consummated the marriage right then and there in 3:11. However, he had a selfless plan that considered Naomi in the mix, and he held off so as to entice the nearer redeemer, who had the right of first choice of buying back the land. Had Boaz married Ruth he could not have legally carried out the custom of levirite marriage because he was not the nearest relative. Then the name of Elimelek along with his land would have passed on to others leaving Naomi destitute.
The issue of "buying" the land and "buying" Ruth are tied together. When a man sold his land he kept the right to buy it back. This was the power of redemption. Now, in case a widow sold the field of her deceased husband for the time that it was in her possession, on account of poverty, and a relation of her husband redeemed it, it was evidently his duty not only to care for the maintenance of the impoverished widow, but if she were still young, to marry her, and to let the first son born of such a marriage enter into the family of the deceased husband of his wife, so as to inherit the redeemed property, and perpetuate the name and possession of the deceased in Israel. Upon this right, which was founded upon traditional custom, Boaz based this condition, which he set before the nearer redeemer, that if he redeemed the field of Naomi he must also take Ruth, with the obligation to marry her, and through this marriage to set up the name of the deceased upon his inheritance (Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database (c) 1996 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.).
#7 Syntactical Question:
To whom does the term laeGO refer to in 14a? To whom does the 3ms suffix on /mv] ("his name") refer to 4:14b? The laeG is neither referring to Boaz or Yahweh, but it must be the newborn child because of the implication in 14b "today, or this day." Naomi’s redeemer came in the form of Obed "this day." The statement in 15b that it is Ruth who has borne him makes this mandatory, especially since it is clearly the "redeemer" who is the unexpressed subject of the preceding clause in 15a. The term laeG then is being used in a general sense, not in its technical sense. It is the one who restores and sustains Naomi’s life in her old age (Bush, 253). The 3ms suffix is speaking of the child Obed in that it is his name that is hoped would be famous in Israel.
#8 Lexical Question:
What is the best way to nuance Jteb;yceAta, lKel]k'l]W vp,n< byvimel] in 4:15a? The literal force of this phrase is not the best translation, as the phrase here is to be taken in a figurative sense as "to restore to fullness of life." As Bush has noted, "Here the author creates an inclusio that provides artistic closure for the whole story, for it was a hiphil of bwv that he placed in the mouth of Naomi in 1:21 when she expressed most poignantly the death and emptiness that are here resolved: ‘full was I when I went away, but empty has Yahweh brought me back’" (Bush, 257). The phrase captures Naomi’s restoration in a new way, that is, she is now full again due to Ruth’s offspring. The meaning of the next phrase Jteb;yceAta, lKel]k'l]W is used to describe the function of the child. He will "sustain and provide the necessities for." The various English translations are all good in light of the fact that they nuance the fact that Obed will "restore you to the fullness of life, and he will sustain you and provide for you in your old age."
RUTH 4 EXEGETICAL ASSIGNMENT, PART 2
#1 Textual Criticism:
There is a textual problem in Ruth 4:5 (actually two of them). The textual problem marked as 5b involves a Kethiv/Qere reading. The Kethiv is the consonantal reading preserved by the MT while the Qere reading is the vocalization preserved by the MT. The verse reads, "…buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you acquire Ruth the Moabitess…" The textual variant at hand has to do with the phrase "you acquire." In the MT the Kethiv reading is ytiynIq while the Qere reading is ht;ynIq;. The Kethiv reading is parsed as a Qal perfect 1cs from hnq ("I acquired") while the Qere is parsed as a Qal perfect 2ms from hnq ("you acquired"). The textual apparatus in the MT reads "pc Ms ut Q ht;ynIq" which means that several medieval Hebrew mss and the Qere support the latter reading. (2) The external evidence for the Kethiv versus the Qere reading is minimal in that there are only two instances, here and in verse 10, that this word hnq is used to denote "acqiring a wife" (as it is most often in regard to making a purchase) as opposed to "taking a wife." This is typically denoted by the term jkl as the usual rendering. In this context the term makes some sense, but external evidence here is of little help. (3) The relationship between the Kethiv versus the Qere to the syntax of 4:5 as a whole… This is a problem, first, because there is no object for the verb hnq. The object intended here is not clear even though the term can be used without an object when it is implied. Second, as Bush notes, "…the logical governing of two nouns in the prepositional phrase "from Naomi and Ruth" is accomplished not by the repetition of the same preposition but by the use of two different prepositions" (page 216).
(4) The effect of 3:13 and 4:9-10 is pivotal because Boaz tells Ruth he will only marry her if the nearer kinsman will not in 3:13. He could not in 4:5 be telling the nearer kinsman that he is going to marry her after the nearer kinsman buys the field because that is not why he went to him in the first place. He could have married her on the threshing floor the night she came to him if that were the case. In 4:9-10 Boaz bought the field AND Ruth who was part of the transaction. In his passage Boaz publicly assumes the responsibility he had proposed to the near kinsman. Ruth was always part of the deal, therefore, the Kethiv reading makes no sense in light of these verses.
(5) Upon the first examination of this problem it appears almost certain the the Qere reading is the appropriate reading. Given the context of the passage and the situation at hand, the harder reading simply makes no sense. I choose the Qere reading.
#2 Discourse Analyis: (on separate page)
#3 Plot Structure of Ruth 4:
#3 Plot Structure: