Ruth 1: 1-14 Word Biblical Commentary

Act 1

Prologue and Problem: Death and Emptiness (1:1–22)

Scene 1

Setting and Problem. A Judean Family Dies in Moab: Naomi Is Left without Husband and Sons (1:1–6)

Translation

1 During the time when the Judges ruled,a there was a famine in the land, and so a certain manb went from Bethlehem in Judah c to live in the territoryd of Moab together withe his wife and his twof sons. 2 The man’s name was Elimelech, the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion—Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah.a They came to the territory of Moab, and there they stayed.

3 Then Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left alone with her two sons.a4 They took Moabite wives, the name of one being Orpah and the other Ruth, and they lived there about ten years. 5 Then both Mahlon and Chilion also died, and the woman was left alone without her two boys and without her husband.

6 Then she set out with her daughters-in-lawa and returned from the territory of Moab, for she heard thereb that Yahweh had seen to the needs of his people by giving them food.

Notes

1.a. Lit. “and it was in the days of the judging of the Judges.” Some mss of the LXX omit “the days of,” and Syr. omits the inf שׁפט. These readings probably represent the translators’ attempt to render the Heb. of the MT rather than evidence for a different Heb. text.

1.b. Lit. “a man.”

1.c. Or perhaps “Bethlehem of Judah”; see Comment.

1.d. Whether the spelling here (שְׂרֵי) should be understood as a rare form of the masc. sg constr (so, e.g., Campbell, 50; Myers, Literary Form, 9; Rudolph, 37) or as masc. pl. constr (so Hubbard, 86, n. 15; Joüon, 32; cf. GKC § 93ll; the pl. constr elsewhere is fem., שְׂרוֹת) is difficult to decide and immaterial as far as meaning is concerned (see Form/Structure/Setting).

1.e. Lit. “he and …”

1.f. Some LXX mss and Syr. omit the word “two.”

2.a. See Note 1.c.

3.a. The Heb. would be more correctly translated “she and her two sons were left alone,” but this then creates a problem in Eng. with the unspecified “they” as the subject of the next verb. This is not a problem in Heb. since the Heb. verb distinguishes masc. and fem. gender in its morphology.

6.a. Lit. “she and her daughters-in-law”; see Comment.

6.b. Lit. “in the territory of Moab.” That the narrator would have used שְׂרֵי מוִאָב in 6a as masc. pl. constr to mean “fields of Moab” but שְׂרֵה מוִאָב here to mean “country of Moab” (Hubbard, 97 n. 3) is most improbable. See Comment on v 1.

Form/Structure/Setting

The first act of the book of Ruth consists of 1:1–22. In it our author gives us the initial setting and circumstances of his story: he tells us that famine has sent an Ephrathite family from Bethlehem to sojourn in Moab, where all its male members die; he introduces us to all but one of the principal characters of the tale, leaving only Boaz for the next scene; and he sets forth the major problem of the book: What will happen to a woman in a patriarchal society when all the men of the family have died? All these data are presented in succinct form in this the opening episode, vv 1–6 (see below). Hence, the question needs to be raised, should not these opening verses be given independent status as the statement of the problem, for which all that happens subsequently is the resolution, so that the rest of chap. 1, vv 7–22, constitutes an independent scene recounting the first step in that resolution? Indeed, some of the data of the first chapter seem to corroborate such a division. Thus, the return to Judah (v 7) could be understood as the first step in Naomi’s transformation from death and emptiness to life and fullness. And surely vv 7–22 tell us how it was that Ruth the Moabitess “returned” to Judah—she whose faithfulness and loyalty will constitute the major means by which Naomi’s transformation will be effected. However, the unity of 1:1–6 with the following two sections, 7–19a and 19b–22, can be seen at all levels of analysis. First, the conditions that distinguish the boundaries of the unit, creating the major break in the discourse, clearly occur at 1:22 and 2:1 (see the discussion there), not at 1:6 and 1:7. In fact, the transition from the opening section to the following is so gradual that there is real ambiguity in determining clearly whether the first unit closes with v 5, 6, or 7 (see the discussion below). Second, the unity of 1:1–22 is demonstrated by the commonness of its content. The theme of this opening act is sounded incessantly by the frequency of occurrence of the verbs הלך, to travel, go, walk,” and שׁוב, “to return.” הלך is used lx in the opening scene, 8x in the second, and lx in the third, while שׁוב, the verb that above all sets the theme of this section (cf. Dommershausen, “Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle,” 396–98), occurs 12x. It refers 6x to a return to Moab, all in the second scene, and 6x to a return to Judah, spread through all three scenes: lx in the first (v 6), 2x in the second (vv 7, 10), and 3x in the third (vv 21, 22, 22). Further, the coherence of the content of the whole section is further effected by the use of other verbs from this same semantic domain: בוא, “to come, enter,” 4x; יצא, “to set forth,” Ix; גור, “to sojourn,” ix; ישׁב, “to dwell, remain,” lx; and לין, “to stay, spend the night,” 2x.

Finally and conclusively, although the developments in the events noted above, namely, Naomi’s return to Judah and Ruth’s insistence on coming with her, could be considered logical steps toward the resolution of the story, it is very clear that, as steps in the plot, our narrator uses these developments far more to set forth the problem of his story—to depict the desolation, despair, and emptiness of Naomi’s life—than as steps in the resolution of her plight. This can be seen most clearly in the content of these scenes, particularly in his characterization of Naomi. Although the primary statement of the problem the story will address is related in w 3–5 of the opening section (see Explanation below), the pain and poignancy of that problem, its affective dimensions, are revealed in his depiction of Naomi in the two following scenes. (1) In the second scene, this is depicted in his characterization of Naomi’s pain and anguish as she faces in dialogue with the two young women the bitter choice of sending them back to Moab (where they have some hope of life again)—and returning home utterly alone—or dragging them with her into the hopelessness of her widowed and lonely state in a foreign land (for details see Explanation for the following scene, vv 7–19a). (2) It is above all depicted in the way in which our narrator devotes the whole content of the arrival scene, vv 19b–22, exclusively to describing Naomi’s bitter despair in her anguished response to the delighted cry of recognition with which the women of Bethlehem greet her (vv 20–21). Furthermore, Ruth’s presence with Naomi is presented in this last scene not as a step toward the resolution of Naomi’s state but as a poignant commentary on the depths of her despair, for her bitter cry that Yahweh has brought her back empty is belied by Ruth’s presence with her, a presence that, though ignored by Naomi, is stressed by the narrator in the last verse of the scene (see Comment and Explanation for 1:22). In addition, this unity is strongly corroborated by the parallelism of the structure of this opening scene with that of the last; see Form/Structure/Setting on 4:1–12 below.

On these grounds, we contend that the opening act comprises 1:1–22, consisting of three scenes, vv 1–6, 7–19a, and 19b–22, and that the major purpose of this act is to set forth the problem of the death and emptiness of the life of Naomi, to the resolution of which the rest of the story will be devoted. In this connection, cf. the insightful analysis and comments of Rauber, JBL 89 (1970) 29–30.

The first scene of this opening act, then, consists of vv 1–6, and the major structural problem in connection with it is its ending. Some commentators end the pericope with v 5 (Campbell, Gerleman, Gray, Hubbard, Joüon, Morris, de Waard-Nida); some with v 6 (Hertzberg, Sasson); and others with v 7a (i.e., after ושׁתי כלתיה עמה, “her two daughters-in-law with her,” Bertholet, Gressmann, Hailer, Rudolph, Trible). On the grounds of rhetorical and structural considerations, Porten (GCA 7 [1978] 23–24) ends the pericope with v 6, and, on the same grounds, Sacon (AJBI 4 [1978] 4–5) with v 7b. On the basis of his analysis of the book of Ruth as narrative poetry, de Moor concludes the unit with v 5 (Or 53 [1984] 274, 280).

In my opinion, the critical question is whether v 6 belongs with what has preceded or with the section to follow. Since it is a transitional passage, good arguments can be found for placing it with either one. I have chosen to see it as the concluding statement of the opening pericope for the following reasons. Even though vv 3–5 form a subunit tightly bound together by the close parallelism of vv 3 and 5 (which form a striking inclusio, see below), thus leaving v 6 as a separate entity, v 6 is antithetically parallel to v 1, providing a chiastic contrast in content: there was a famine / went to Moab (v 1); returned from Moab / Yahweh … (gave) food (v 6) (see Porten, GCA 7 [1978] 24). Note how v 6 looks backward with its “return … from the territory of Moab” while v 7 looks forward with its “return to the land of Judah.” Second, v 6 provides the conclusion to the initial circumstances and setting, namely, the journey to Moab because of famine (v 1) and the return from Moab because the famine is over. It also forms, however, a preview and content summary of all that will be revealed in more detail in the following two scenes and as such provides the transition to the story of the return told in those scenes, in which our narrator will set forth the affective dimensions of the problem he here simply states.

This opening pericope clearly divides into three sections. Vv 1–2 describe the setting, the characters, and the initial circumstances of the book. They are framed as a unit by the contrast between “went from Bethlehem in Judah” in v 1 and the summary statement at the end of v 2: “they came to the territory of Moab and there they stayed.” Vv 3–5 form a tightly constructed chiasm framed by an identically parallel inclusio:

A Then died Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, and she was left alone

with her two sons.

v 3

B They took Moabite wives, the name of one Orpah and the other Ruth,

v 4a

B´ And they lived there about ten years,

v 4b

A´ Then died also both Mahlon and Chillon, and the woman was left alone

without her two boys and without her husband.

v 5

V 6, as noted above, rounds off and brings to a conclusion the initial circumstances of vv 1–2: “went to Moab” is balanced by “returned from Moab,” while “famine” is balanced by “food.” The verse concludes with a lovely alliteration לָתֵת לָחֶם לָחֶם lātet lāhem lāḥem “by giving them food,” which rings with associations in sound and meaning with the family’s place of origin בית לחם, “Bethlehem.”

In regard to time, our narrator dates his story only in the most general terms: lit. “in the days of the judging of the Judges,” v 1. To attempt to date the story more precisely, then, such as suggesting that it implies the period between the Judges Ehud and Jephthah (Sasson, 15; cf. Hubbard, 84), is to go beyond the intent of the author. He clearly intends to tell us simply that his story took place in the period after the settlement of the land but before the monarchy existed in Israel. It does not seem at all likely that there is some stress on either the Judges or “judging” (contra Campbell, 57). Neither does this expression ring with connotations similar to English “once upon a time.” By referring to a definable time period in the history of his people, he implies that the events he is about to relate do belong to his people’s past (see also Sasson, 14). It is quite incorrect to call this expression a “characteristic folk-tale description of a time long past” (Harvey, IDB 4:131–34). It does not clearly give any indications as to how far in the past this period is. Once Israel’s whole socio-juridical system changed with the establishment of the monarchy, this would be the natural way to refer to the previous period.

In regard to place, our story involves a family from Bethlehem in Judah, and the resolution of the problem here related will be worked out exclusively within the confines of that village scene. (On the physical nature and environs of the Israelite village in the Judean and Samarian hill country, see Stager, BASOR 260 [1985] 1–35.) Bethlehem is situated approximately five miles southwest of Jerusalem. It figures in some of the earliest stories of the period after the settlement of the land by Israel. The Levite who became the priest of Micah in Ephraim and who later migrated north with the Danites came originally from Bethlehem (Judg 17–18). It was also the home of the concubine whose brutal death in Gibeah of Benjamin was the cause célèbre that brought on the Benjaminite war (Judg 19). By far its most famous claim to fame, however, is its identification as the birthplace of David (1 Sam 16:1–13). As such, it is also expected to be the home of the coming Messianic king (Mic 5:2[Eng. 5:1]). Whether it is attested in the Amarna texts from the fourteenth century b.c. is disputed (see Campbell, 54).

Bethlehem lies on a pronounced ridge some 2400 feet above sea level. To the east and at a lower elevation lie broad fertile fields producing the characteristic crops of the region, grain, olives, and grapes. To the west, however, lies the prominent height of Har Gillo, cutting the town off from the western slopes of the central mountain ridge. This means that Bethlehem lies slightly in the rain shadow, for the eastern slopes receive far less rain than those west of the water parting, desert conditions prevailing very quickly to the east of the high point of the central mountain ridge (see Baly, Geography, 183, and esp. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 211–12). When the rains failed, the desert conditions of the Wilderness of Judea quickly invaded the towns that lay along its western edge, such as Bethlehem.

Because of the famine, Elimelech and his family remove to שׂרי מואב, which we have translated “the territory of Moab.” The word שׂרה can mean (1) “open country, open field (as opposed to villages or cities)” and (2) “plot of (amble) land, field (of an individual).” On this basis one might conclude that שׂרי מואב referred to some particular portion of the land of Moab. However, whenever שׂרה occurs in construct with a geographical name it means (3) “region, territory, domain.” Thus, for example, שׂרה ארום, “domain of Edom,” occurs in apposition to שׂעיר ארץ, “land of Seir,” in Gen 32:4 (cf. also Judg 5:4), both referring to the country of Edom. Hence, our narrator informs us only that they went to live in the “territory” or “region” of Moab.

The country of Moab lay almost directly east of Judah on the other side of the deep depression of the Jordan Rift Valley, which is filled with that body of water known as the Dead Sea. It comprised three regions: (1) the “plains of Moab” (Num 22:1), a region on the east side of the Jordan rift valley just north of the Dead Sea where the valley floor reaches back into the eastern scarp of the Transjordanian plateau in a great “bay”; (2) the מישׁר (Deut 3:10), a level tableland east of the Dead Sea, 2000–2400 feet high, stretching from the northern end of the Dead Sea to the Arnon River, which flows into the sea about halfway down its length; and (3) the heartland of Moab, the higher tableland reaching heights above 4000 feet, stretching from the Arnon to the Zered, which empties into the southern end of the Dead Sea (see Baly, Geography, 202, 229–33). Since our narrator is totally silent about where in Moab the family of Elimelech took up residence, speculation will add nothing to his story. One can only note that the probabilities considerably favor the northern tableland over the more remote southern region.

Comment

1 וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים, “During the time when the Judges ruled.” The book opens with a characteristic Hebrew temporal clause introduced by the waw-consecutive form of the verb היה, “to be,” followed by the temporal expression (GKC § 111g), in this case consisting of the preposition בימי, “during the time that” (lit. “in the days of”), followed by the infinitive construct שׁפט plus its cognate subject שׁפטים “Judges.” Although this exact construction is unknown elsewhere in the OT (Campbell notes only Gen 36:31 as a close parallel), its meaning is quite clear. The word יום, “day,” is the usual term for expressing time in a durative sense (Joüon, 31; cf. esp. 1 Sam 22:4; 2 Chron 26:5). Some have alleged that the fact that Ruth begins with the waw-consecutive form of the verb היה implies that it was, or was thought to be, the continuation of another text (cf. GKC § 49b n. 1; Joüon, 31). However, a number of books of the OT begin with a waw-consecutive form of the verb (Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Kings, Ezekiel, Esther, Nehemiah, and 2 Chronicles) and, although some of these doubtless were originally parts of a larger whole (notably Leviticus, Numbers, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles), it is not possible that they all were (certainly not Ezekiel and Esther). There can be no doubt that Ruth always formed a separate literary entity and was never part of a larger work (so also Gerleman, Hubbard, Rudolph; see the excellent discussion of Morris, 245 n. 1).

וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ, “there was a famine in the land.” Since this “certain man” and his family went to Moab to escape the famine, it is clear that our author uses אֶרֶץ, “land,” here in its traditional sense of the land of Israel proper, i.e., Cisjordan, as often in the OT (cf., e.g., Judg 18:2; 1 Sam 14:29). To charge, as Gerleman (14) does, that a migration from Judah to Moab is hardly conceivable, since Moab lies climatically in the same region as Judah and has the same rainfall, not only makes nonsense of the story but is not borne out by the facts. The amount of rainfall in Palestine in a given year in modern times has varied widely from region to region—and even village to village (see Baly, Geography, 69–76)—and Amos 4:7–8 rather clearly suggests that the same conditions existed in the OT period. The sharp scarp of the Transjordanian plateau, which in places is higher than Cisjordan, causes considerable rain to fall on its western margin as the winds, sucked down by the Jordan rift valley, rise again to surmount it. Scott notes (IDB 3:622) that in the dry year of 1931–32 more rain fell in southern Moab than at Bethlehem, illustrating the feasibility of the situation described in our story. A famine in Judah could well have left parts of Moab sufficiently unaffected to provide a haven (cf. Hubbard, 87 nn. 19, 22).

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּרָה, “and so a certain man went from Bethlehem in Judah.” It is syntactically impossible to tell whether “from Bethlehem in Judah” modifies the verb “went” (i.e., “went from Bethlehem in Judah”) or the noun “man” (i.e., “a man from Bethlehem in Judah”). On the grounds that, in introducing a new character, it is common to supply his address as well as his name, Andersen takes it with the noun “man” (SBH, 90; cf. Hubbard, 83 n. 2). The translation chosen here is based on rhetorical considerations, namely, that “went from Bethlehem in Judah” and “came to the territory of Moab” form an inclusio, framing vv 1–2 as a subunit (see Form/Structure/Setting above; cf. Joüon, 31; Campbell, 50). The expression בית לחם יהורה is either a compound name, “Bethlehem-Judah,” or a construct expression, “Bethlehem of Judah.” The specification “of Judah” is necessary in order to be exact since בית לחם, literally “place of food/bread,” means something like “granary” (Morris, 248) or “storehouse,” and hence there was another city with the same name in Zebulun (Josh 19:15).

לָגוּר בִּשְׂרֵי מוֹאָב, “to live in the territory of Moab.” גור is a technical term expressing the position in society occupied by a גר, often translated “resident alien,” a position intermediate between a native and a foreigner. The גר, since he lived among people to whom he had no blood relationship or tribal affiliation, had only the rights and status that the hospitality of the native population accorded him. (For a description of these rights in Israel, see TDOT 2:443–48; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 74–76.) It is a reasonable assumption that some similar status would also have existed in Moabite society. That such was the case would be virtually certain if the restoration of the term גר as a social category of persons in line 16 of the stela of Mesha, king of Moab, is correct (see Gibson, TSSI 1:75, 80–81). One could translate the verb לָגוּר, as “to live as a resident alien” but, besides being cumbersome, that implies a modern legal status no doubt markedly different from that of ancient Palestine. The verb in and of itself does not necessarily connote a temporary stay (contra Morris, 247), for many “resident aliens” lived in a community more or less permanently. A move because of famine, however, would normally suggest that it was not intended to be permanent.

שׂרֵי מואב, “territory of Moab,” is spelled this way four times in Ruth (1:1, 2, 6, 22) and three times as the normal singular construct form שְׂרֵה (1:6; 2:6; 4:3; see Myers, Linguistic and Literary Form, 9). Although it is possible that שְׂרֵי is the plural construct form, that form elsewhere is שְׂרוֹת. Since a singular absolute form שָׂרַי occurs elsewhere (predominantly in poetry), it is probable that שְׂרֵי is singular, not plural, and is an older orthographic variant for שְׂרֵה (see GKC § 93ll; for a contrary opinion, see Hubbard, 86 n. 15).

הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּשְׁנֵי בָנָיו, lit. “he and his wife and his two sons.” The independent pronoun הוא, “he,” is not emphatic here. When one adds a second subject (here “his wife and his two sons”) to a nominal subject (here אישׁ, “man”) after a separating word or phrase, a resumptive pronoun is necessary (see GBH § 146.c.2; IBHS § 16.3.2.c).

2 וְכִלְיוֹן מַחְלוֹן … נָעֳמִי … אֱלִימֶלֶךְ “Elimelech … Naomi … Mahlon and Chilion.” The names of the family members need not detain us long, for our author makes no play on their meaning, with the exception of Naomi. His example, unfortunately, has not been followed by some modern discussions, one of which has sought in the names symbolic meanings connected with fertility cult myths (see Staples, AJSL 53 [1936–37] 145–57). It is important, however, to observe that, although all four occur only here in the OT, three of them are well attested in extrabiblical literature of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1400 b.c.) and the fourth is of a similar pattern. Elimelech occurs both in the Amarna texts and at Ugarit, while Chilion is found in both syllabic and alphabetic texts from Ugarit. Although Mahlon is not attested, it is built on identically the same pattern as Chilion. The name נעמי Noʿǒmî means “good, pleasant, lovely,” an etymology that will be used by our narrator in v 22. The name occurs at Ugarit, and the form, ending in-î, possibly originally -iya or-aya, is widely attested in female names from Ugarit and among the female Amorite names from Mari. (For documentation, see esp. Hubbard, 88–90.) Since our author makes no wordplay upon them (apart from Naomi), the etymologies of these names, although frequently discussed by commentators, are of no relevance for the meaning of our story. Hence, they will not be discussed here (for detailed treatment, see Hubbard, Campbell, or Sasson). It should be noted, however, that supposed etymologies for Chilion and Mahlon, yielding the meanings “extermination” and “sickness,” respectively, have often been used to posit that they are fictitious names invented to fit their role in the story.

אֶפְרָתִים מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּרָה, “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah.” Of more importance to the story than the etymologies of the names (see Explanation) is the identification of this family as “Ephrathites” from Bethlehem. In Judg 12:15; 1 Sam 1:1; 1 Kgs 11:26, the gentilic אפרתי refers to people from Ephraim and indeed in these passages clearly is the gentilic form of the tribal and geographic name אפרים, “Ephraim.” On the other hand, 1 Sam 17:12, as well as our passage, knows of the Ephrathites as a portion (probably a “clan,” see below) of the population of Bethlehem. Further, the geographic term אפרתה/אפרת is unmistakably an alternate name for Bethlehem in 4:11, and the compound name “Bethlehem-Ephrathah” in Mic 5:1 (Eng. 2) is deemed “little to be among the clans [אלפי] of Judah.” In addition, the author of Chronicles knows אפרתה/אפרת as the wife of Caleb who bore to him Hur, the “father of Bethlehem” (1 Chron 4:4; but cf. 1 Chron 2:50–51). Finally, Gen 35:16–19; 48:7 narrates that Rachel died in childbirth “while there was still a distance of ground to come to Ephrathah” (35:16; 48:7) and was buried “on the road to Ephrathah, that is, Bethlehem” (36:19; 48:7). There is nothing that compels one to locate this Ephrathah in Benjamin (contra Fawcett, IDB 4:5; Stager, BASOR 260 [1985] 23), even though the OT also knows a tradition that locates Rachel’s tomb in the territory of Benjamin (1 Sam 10:2), presumably near Ramah (Jer 31:15), and even though the identification of Ephrathah with Bethlehem in Gen 36:19; 48:7 is very likely a later addition to the text (see also the remarks of Gottwald, Tribes of Israel, 268–69,). Further (contra Cohen, IDB 2:122), the juxtaposition of Ephrathah with “the fields of Jaar” (שׂרי יער) as parallel pairs in the poetry of Ps 132:6 in no way demands that Ephrathah is a northern region on the basis that שׂרי יער is a variant form of Kiriath-Jearim (קרית יערים) and that the parallelism with Ephrathah is synonymous. It surely is not out of place in a psalm that extols David for bringing the ark to Jerusalem (vv 1–5, 8) to mention both the place of David’s origins, Ephrathah, and שׂרי יער (i.e., Kiriath-Jearim), the site from which he brought the ark to Jerusalem after its twenty-year sojourn there (1 Sam 7:1–2). As a geographical entity, Ephrathah was probably at one time not an alternate name for Bethlehem but a site nearby, one of the tributary villages (Hebrew בנות, lit. “daughters”) within the territory of Bethlehem. Gottwald (Tribes of Israel, 269) may well be correct in suggesting that it lay in the direction of Tekoa to the southeast on the grounds of its connections with Caleb (1 Chron 2:19, 24, 50–51; 4:4). In the sense in which it is used here, however, it figures not as a village but as the name of one of the משׁפחות, the “clans,” that formed the population of Bethlehem (cf. Hubbard, 91). As Gottwald (Tribes of Israel, 269) observes:

… it seems a reasonable assumption that the region known as Ephrathah was inhabited by a single mishpāḥāh and that when Elimelech’s family members are called “Ephrathites” it means more than that they lived in Ephrathah; it means that they were of the protective association of families known as mishpaḥath Ephrati (compared to Saul’s mishpaḥath Matri, or possibly mishpaḥath Bichri). Micah still remembers that Ephrathah was counted “among the ʾalphē Judah” (ʾeleph here replacing the more common mishpaḥath), a memory probably kept alive by the prominence of the ʾeleph of David. The proposal that the mishpaḥath Ephrati of Elimelech and Boaz inhabited a sub-section of larger Bethlehem fits well with the general conception of the story. If the entirety of Bethlehem was one mishpāḥāh or only a part of a still more widely dispersed mishpāḥāh (as would appear to be the case if we follow Numbers 26:19–22 in believing that there were only five mishpāḥōth in all Judah), then the singling out of Boaz as “known kinsman” of mishpaḥath Elimelech is foolish. If all Bethlehemites were from the same mishpāḥāh as Elimelech, then all Bethlehemites would have been “known kinsmen” of Elimelech. The excitement and suspense of the story depends upon the fact that only some Bethlehemites are of Elimelech’s mishpāḥāh.

All of this would serve, of course, to give added point to the identification of Elimelech’s family as “Ephrathites.” The language here is strikingly reminiscent of the identification of David in 1 Sam 17:12: “David was the son of an Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah …” (see Explanation).

וַיִּהיוּ שָׁם, “and there they stayed.” The verb הָיָה, “to be,” is used here in the sense of “to remain, stay.” This meaning is not infrequent or unusual (contra Campbell; cf. Exod 34:28, Judg 17:12; BDB, III.2, p. 226; HALOT, 3.b, p. 244). Hubbard (91) may well be right in observing that the omission of a time reference, which often accompanies the idiom, may suggest that the sojourn in Moab would be of indefinite duration.

4 וַיִּשְׂאוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מֹאֲבִיּוֹת, “They took Moabite wives.” The idiom נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה, “to take a wife,” occurs elsewhere only in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, i.e., in post-exilic texts. The earlier idiom is לקח אשׁה. This has often been used as one piece of evidence for a post-exilic date for the book (see Introduction).

רוּת … עָרְפָּה, “Orpah … Ruth.” As with the names of the characters given in v 2 above, our author makes no play on the meanings of the names Ruth or Orpah; hence, the involved discussion of their possible etymologies brings no enlightenment to our story (see again for details Hubbard, Campbell, or Sasson). It should be noted, however, that a supposed etymology for Orpah, yielding the meaning “she who turned her back,” has often been used as evidence that this name is also fictitious, invented to fit her role in the story.

וַיֵּשְׁב שָׁם כְּעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, “and they lived there about ten years.” The context in general, and in particular the masculine plural form of the verb following upon the change to masculine plural in the verb of the previous clause (for which see Note 3.a.), is very strongly in favor of the meaning that it is the two sons (and Naomi) who lived there about ten years (so Joüon, 34), rather than that the two sons were married for ten years (contra Hubbard, 91 n. 2; Campbell, 58; cf. Sasson, 21). This and the appended approximative כ, “about,” makes it unlikely that there is any conscious echo here of Gen 16:3 (contra Sasson, Hubbard). Even less likely is it that “the passage of ten years makes the audience anticipate … the birth of children” and hence that the text “quietly introduces one of the book’s dominant themes, the problem of heirs” (Hubbard, 95).

5 וַתִּשָּׁאֵת הָאִשָּׁה מִשְּׁנֵי יְלָרֶיהָ וּמֵאִישָׁהּ “and the woman was left alone without her two boys and without her husband.” The idiom השׁאר מן, lit. “to be left from,” is used here in a unique sense. Elsewhere in this idiom the preposition מן, “from,” has its partitive force (e.g., Deut 3:11, “Only Og King of Bashan was left from the survivors of the Rephaites”; cf. Exod 10:5; Josh 13:12). The force of מן, here, however, is “without,” a meaning not listed by BDB or Ges.-Buhl (Joüon, 35), but, see GKC § 119w and HebS § 321. As Joüon (35) notes, the use of ילר, “boy, youth,” to refer to a married man occurs only here. The choice likely results from two factors: (1) it forms an inclusio with 4:16 where Naomi cradles a new ילר in her arms (Campbell, 56), and (2) it expresses the poignancy of the mother’s loss more than would the prosaic בן, “son.” On its use in comparison to synonyms, see McDonald, JNES 35 (1976) 150.

6 וַתָּקָם הִיא וְכַלֹּתֶיהָ וַתָּשָׁב מִשְּׂרֵי מוֹאָב “Then she set out with her daughters-in-law and returned from the territory of Moab.” The syntax here is striking. Although the singular form of the Hebrew verb ותקם, “then she set out,” which stands prior to its compound subject, is quite regular (cf. GKC §§ 146f, g), it is at variance with normal Hebrew syntax for the succeeding predicate ותשׁב, “and returned,” whose subject must be the preceding compound, “she and her daughters-in-law,” to be singular rather than plural (cf. GKC §§ 145s, u). Further, even more striking is the continuation of this feminine singular construction in both the following subordinate clause of reason, כי שׁמעה, “for she heard,” and the succeeding sequential main clause ותצא, “so she set forth,” v 7. The net effect of this is that the true subject of all these clauses is simply “she,” i.e., Naomi alone, and not “Naomi and her daughters-in-law,” which compound phrase is the literal subject of the first clause. To reflect this, one must not render the first clause with a compound subject, “she and her daughters-in-law set out,” but rather with “she set out with her daughters-in-law.” For the significance of this, see the Comment on v 7 and the Explanation.

לָתֵת לָחֶם לָחֶם, “by giving them food.” This use of the infinitive construct of נתן, “to give,” plus the preposition ל is the equivalent of the English gerund with the preposition “by,” expressing means, i.e., “by … -ing” (see HebS § 195; IBHS § 36.2.3.e).

Explanation

As the section on Form/Structure/Setting has revealed, our author describes in the opening section, vv 1–2, the initial setting and circumstances of his story: famine sends a family from Bethlehem to sojourn in Moab. Since these facts are incidental to the major problem of the story, giving only the background and setting, they are stated in only the broadest of terms. We do not know the cause, severity, or extent of the famine, and it is dated only “during the time when the Judges ruled.” Nor are we given the slightest information as to the destination of this family; they simply went to reside “in the territory of Moab.” And although he gives us the names of the members of this family—a man Elimelech, his wife Naomi, and two sons Mahlon and Chilion—our narrator, in the main, has touched the canvas of his story with broad brush strokes only, unrelieved by detail. Yet in one place at least he has flecked that canvas not only with detail but with repetition, which, hence, is highlighted, so it behooves us to note this with care. Although he tells us nothing more than that a famine occurred to occasion a family’s migration to a foreign land, and although he gives us not one word as to their actual destination in the whole country of Moab, he twice tells us the origin of this family born to trouble. They are not just from Judah but from Bethlehem in Judah (vv 1 and 2); they are not just Bethlehemites but very specifically “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah” (v 2). In the period in which the story was told, this foregrounding of origin in such repeated detail could hardly fail to raise in the minds of its hearers connections with the most famous Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah—David son of Jesse. Note the language of 1 Sam 17:12, “Now David was the son of an Ephrathite from Bethlehem in Judah whose name was Jesse …,” and see Comment on v 2. Hence, suggestions about the end of the story in 4:17, and the appended genealogy, were already woven subtly into the tapestry of its opening verses. So, though that ending doubtless still came as a delightful surprise, it was nonetheless an expected and anticipated one.

While noting the implications of this highlighted detail, it is also important to stress the lack of implications in the broad general statements with which our author sketches in the rest. There is not the faintest suggestion, for example, that there is any opprobrium to be attached to the move to Moab or that the famine is Israel’s punishment for her sin. Especially there is not the slightest hint that the tragic deaths of Elimelech and his sons in any way resulted from their having forsaken their people in a time of trouble or their having moved to Moab where the sons married Moabite women. Later rabbinic exegesis used such themes of retribution and punishment to the full (for details, see Campbell), but they are read into the story, not out of it. In point of fact, a plausible case can be made for the existence, at times, of reasonably friendly relations between Judah and Moab in the period prior to the Israelite monarchy (note Deut 2:8–9, 28–29 and especially 1 Sam 22:3–5, which tells of David taking his parents to the king of Moab at Mizpah of Moab when he became a fugitive from Saul; see Campbell and note the comments in IDB 3:414–15). The attitude expressed in Deut 23:3–6 is that of a much later period. Hence, as Campbell notes, the events recorded are certainly plausible. However, apart from the issue of the plausibility of the story, none of this is relevant to its meaning simply because the author leaves all such questions totally in the background—by design, in my opinion. To raise such questions, indeed to give any more details, would have been a distraction, for the complete journey to and from Moab and its cause are but the background and setting for the main problem the story addresses, which is depicted in the second section, vv 3–5.

Famine has driven a family to Moab, yes, but that event is not the stuff that makes a good story—at least not this good story. The stuff of this story is the death and deprivation succinctly but powerfully portrayed in the short section, vv 3–5, so strikingly bracketed by the journey to Moab because of famine (vv 1–2) and the notice of the return from Moab because Yahweh has provided food (v 6). Here form and content unite to highlight the theme of death and deprivation: v 5 is chiastically parallel to v 3, identical in structure and closely related in content (see Form/Structure/Setting). The tragic picture of the widow left alone with two sons, so succinctly recounted in v 3, is given momentary respite through the marriage of the two sons to Moabite wives (v 4a). But the possibility of the continuation of the family, first postponed by ten years without progeny (v 4b), is then dramatically ended (cf. Trible, 167): both Mahlon and Chilion also died, “and the woman,” the narrator tells us, “was left alone without her two boys and without her husband.”

Here our narrator sets forth unmistakably for us the major character and the major problem of his story. He achieves this by the subtle way that Naomi’s identity shifts within the pericope through the way he names her (on the general subject of naming in narrative poetics, see A. Berlin, Poetics, 59–61). In vv 1–2 he calls her “his [i.e., Elimelech’s] wife.” Yet never again throughout the rest of the story is she ever identified as “Naomi wife of Elimelech.” She is simply “Naomi” or, from the point of view of Ruth or Orpah, “mother-in-law.” Not even in the legal negotiation between Boaz and the nearer redeemer at the city gate in chap. 4 (so Berlin, Poetics, 87), where a legally exact definition would seem most appropriate (note Ruth’s identity; see below), does Boaz call her “wife of Elimelech” but only “Naomi, who returned from the territory of Moab” (4:3), or simply “Naomi” (4:9; strikingly in contrast with “Ruth the Moabitess, wife of Mahlon,” 4:10). That Naomi is the principal character is subtly effected here in v 3 at the beginning of the story by the way the narrator identifies Elimelech: “Then died Elimelech the husband of Naomi.” Here normal patriarchal identities are reversed: instead of “Naomi wife of Elimelech” we have “Elimelech husband of Naomi.” By this reversal, Naomi is given center stage; the tale to come is her story. Throughout, when not viewed through the eyes of Orpah or Ruth as “mother-in-law,” she “stands independently, known only by her proper name” (Berlin, Poetics, 87). Indeed, “a man’s world is to tell a woman’s story” (Trible, 166).

Further, through the way our narrator refers to Naomi in this pericope, he also delineates clearly the major problem of his story. In its chiastic parallelism, v 5 is closely related in content to v 3, but it is also strikingly different. In his choice of one word in the final clause, the narrator suddenly leaves the particularity and individuality of his story and makes a general statement for his audience to ponder: “The woman,” he says, “was left alone without her two boys and without her husband.” He does so “for the emotional effect of the phrase—a woman stands alone” (Berlin, Poetics, 87). In this way he sets forth powerfully and poignantly the major problem the story will address and resolve: What will happen to a woman in Israel’s patriarchal world, in which, as all his hearers knew so well, all power and privilege were vested in the male members of the family, when suddenly all of them are gone?

From wife to widow, from mother to no-mother, this female is stripped of all identity. The security of husband and children, which a male-dominated culture affords its women, is hers no longer. The definition of worth, by which it values the female, applies to her no more. The blessings of old age, which it gives through progeny, are there no longer. Stranger in a foreign land, this woman is a victim of death—and of life. (Trible, 167–68)

In v 6, the author brings full circle the opening and incidental circumstances: Naomi (and her daughters-in-law) returned from Moab. The verb “return” (שׁוב), new to this section, both completes the introduction and looks ahead to the next scene, a scene dominated by the theme of “returning.” Thus far, outside of the tantalizingly veiled allusions contained in the identity of this family as “Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah,” the introductory scene has not given the slightest hint as to how this desperate state of affairs will be resolved. Is there hope for Naomi (and her two daughters-in-law)? As the next scene will reveal, Naomi bitterly does not think so. However, in the way the narrator states the reason for her return in the final clause of v 6, he raises our hopes and expectations, for he interprets the physical facts in the light of his covenant faith: “she heard,” he tells us, “that Yahweh had seen to the needs of his people by giving them food.” Those who hear the story and share such a theology can only wait to see how and in what way Yahweh will likewise remember Naomi. Does he perhaps even mean that this is the form in which Naomi heard or interpreted the facts? We cannot be sure, but, if so, it will not be until much later that Naomi can see beyond the circle of bitterness and despair that now surrounds her (see 2:20). For the nonce, she has been, like Job, “rendered bereft of those things which provide her security and she cannot comprehend why (see 1:20–21)” (Campbell). But that is to anticipate our author’s story.

Scene 2

Emptiness Compounded: Naomi and Her Daughters-in-law on the Road to Judah (1:7–19a)

Bibliography

Aejmelaeus, A.“Function and Interpretation ofכיin Biblical Hebrew.”JBL105 (1986) 193–209.Barr, J.“Why? in Biblical Hebrew.”JTS36 (1985) 1–33.Brichto, H.“Kin, Cult, Land, and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex.”HUCA44 (1973) 9–24.Dillard, R.2 Chronicles.WBC15. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.Dommershausen, W.“Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle.” InTheologie im Wandel. Munich-Freiburg: Wewel, 1967. 394–407.Fewell, D.,andGunn, D.“ ‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth.”JSOT40 (1988) 99–108.Gruber, M.Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980.Hunter, A.“How Many Gods Had Ruth?”SJT34 (1981) 427–35.Hyman, R. T.“Questions and the Book of Ruth.”HS24 (1983) 17–25.———. “Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth.”USQR39 (1984) 189–201.Moor, J. de.“The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part I).”Or53 (1984) 262–83.Porten, B.“The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study.”GCA7 (1978) 23–49.Rauber, D.“Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth.”JBL89 (1970) 27–37.Rendsburg, G.“Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‘P.’”JANES12 (1980) 65–80.Schoors, A.“The Particleכי.”OTS21 (1981) 240–76.Thompson, D., and Thompson, T.“Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth.”VT18 (1968) 79–99.Vesco, J.“La date du livre de Ruth.”RB74 (1967) 235–47.Vriezen, T. “Einige Notizen zur Übersetzung des Bindeswortkî.” InVon Ugarit nach Qumran, ed. J. Hempel and L. Rost.BZAW77. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1958. 266–73.

Translation

7 So she set forth from the place where she had been staying,a together with her two daughters-in-law, and they tookb the road to return to the land of Judah. 8 Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Come, return each of you to her mother’sa house! May Yahweh dealb kindly and faithfully with you as you have done with the dead and with me. 9 May Yahweh grant that each of you may find repose in the house of a husband.”

And she kissed them good-bye, and they all wept and sobbed loudly.a

10 But they said to her, “No, we want toa go with you back to your people!”

11 Then Naomi replied, “Go back, my daughters! Why do you want to come with me? Do I yet have sons within mea to becomeb husbands for you? 12 Go back, my daughters! Go! For I am too old to have a husband. Even if I said that there was hope for me—indeed, if I had a husband this nighta and actually bore sons—13 would you wait for thema until they grew up? Would you go without a husband for them?a No, my daughters! For my life is much too bitter for youb to share, for Yahweh has stretched out his handc against me.”

14 They continued to weep loudly.a Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell,b but Ruth clung to her.

15 “Look,” said Naomi,a “your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her god. Go backb after your sister-in-law!”

16 And Ruth said,

“Do not press me to leave you,

To turn back from following you.a

For wherever you travel, I will travel;

And wherever you stay, I will stay.

Your people will be my people,

And your God, my God.

17 Where you die, I will die;

And there shall I be buried.

Thus may Yahweh do to me and more alsoa—

Nothing but death will separate me from you!”

18 When Naomia saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more.b19a Then the two of them went on until they arrived at Bethlehem.

Notes

7.a. On this meaning of היה, see Comment on v 2 above.

7.b. Lit. “And they went on.” See Comment.

8.a. LXXB reads the same as MT; LXXA (and some other LXX mss) reads some form of “father,” while Syr. expands: “your country and the house of your parents.” These variants reveal translators wrestling with a difficult text and demonstrate that the MT reading is original.

8.b. K (יעשׂה) shows the full form of the impf rather than the shortened form of the juss (יעשׁ), which the vowel pointing of Q supplies. The juss sense is required, but either form is correct, since the full form of the impf of verbs לה֞ is frequently used with the sense of the juss. See GKC § 109a n. 2.

9.a. Lit. “they lifted their voices and wept.” See Comment.

10.a. Heb. נשׁוב. For the use of the simple impf to express the nuance “want to,” cf. GKC § 107n; GBH § 113n.

11.a. Lit. “in my insides, abdomen.”

11.b. In a rather rare use (cf. GBH § 119 n. 2), the pf with waw consec (והיו) after a nominal clause expresses result here. See IBHS § 32.2.4.a.

12.a. Several mss of the LXX and Syr. omit הלילה, “tonight” (considering it indecent?—so Campbell, Rudolph, Gerleman). Other LXX mss misread it as חלילה, “profaned.” The MT is unquestionably the original text.

13.a. The LXX, Syr., Tg., OL, and Vg all read “for them,” with the pronoun “them” clearly referring to the sons that Naomi mentions in the protasis in v 12; hence, they read the suffix as 3rd masc. pl. This would require הלהם rather than MT’s הלהן. See Comment.

13.b. Heb. מכם. For the interpretation of the masc. pl. here as originally a dual ending, see Comment on עמכם in v 8.

13.c. Lit. “the hand of Yahweh has come forth against me.” See Comment.

14.a. Lit. “They lifted up their voice and wept still more.” See Comment. The form וַתִּשֶּׂנָה, from נשׂא, lacks the quiescent aleph; the full form occurs in v 9 (see GKC §§ 74k, 76b).

14.b. Since נשׁק here has the force “to kiss farewell” (see Comment on v 9), the added phrases of Syr., “she turned and went,” and the LXX, “she returned to her people,” are clearly not original, despite de Moor’s arguments on poetic grounds (Or 53 [1984] 281).

15.a. Lit. “she said.” In Heb. style, the change in subj does not need to be specifically stated. Eng. style, however, requires identifying the speaker.

15.b. The LXX (throughout) and Syr. have “an attractive addition here” (Campbell, 73). After the verb, they read the equivalent of גם את, “you too” (Joüon, Campbell). As Campbell notes (73), this might represent an independent text tradition, lost in the forerunners of the MT.

16.a. Heb. שֹׁוב מאחריך, lit. “to turn back from after you.” In such idioms, מאחרי has the meaning “from following” (see BDB, 4.a[α], p. 30, and compare 1 Sam 24:2; with עלה, cf. 1 Sam 14:46).

17.a. Lit. “and thus may he add.”

18.a. Lit. “when she …” Again Heb. style does not express the change in subj. In contrast, some LXX mss and Syr. add “Naomi.” Eng. style also needs the subj made explicit. On the expression of the temporal clause by simple juxtaposition, see HebS § 496; GKC §§ 111d, 164b.

18.b. Lit. “She ceased to speak to her.”

Form/Structure/Setting

The form of this whole scene differs from that of the introductory pericope in two striking and important ways. First, our narrator does not, except at one point (v 19a), move events forward in great leaps by using broad, general statements as he did in the first section. Instead, he now relates certain incidents in considerable detail; indeed, in this scene he brings the action to a full halt partway on the journey home and relates to us an extended conversation between Naomi and the two young women. Second, he does not primarily relate to us what the protagonists of his story are thinking or feeling or what their intentions were by making narrative statements about them. Rather, he communicates this information by letting us hear them speak; i.e., his favorite literary device here, as well as in the rest of the book, is dialogue. As Joüon (12 n. 1) puts it, “The story could have been told in a few verses. But, what produces in part the charm of the narrative is that the author, instead of telling us who his characters are and what they do, has them speak. More than half the book is in dialogue (exactly 55 verses out of 85).” The task of the interpreter is thereby made more difficult, for the feelings, intentions, and actions of the characters of the story are portrayed indirectly and subtly. Yet by this method of portrayal, the individuals of the story emerge as persons with life and flesh and feelings in a way that simple narrative statements about them could hardly portray.

On the basis of both form and content, this scene divides unmistakably into three dialogues, each separated by narrative transitions and the whole enclosed by a narrative introduction and conclusion, as follows:

This carefully constructed scene is a chiasm, formed around the second dialogue (vv 10–13), which is the high point of Naomi’s attempt to persuade her daughters-in-law not to return with her to Judah. The narrative introduction (A) and conclusion (A´) both correspond and contrast in content and form. In A, the three women set forth (תצא) on the journey and go (תלכנה) on their way; in A´, Naomi and Ruth go on (תלכנה) until they arrive at (באנה) Bethlehem. The repetition of ותלכנה, “they went (on),” and the appropriate chiastic contrast of יצא, “to set forth,” and בוא, “to arrive,” form an inclusio clearly marking the beginning and end of the passage.

Dialogues 1 (B) and 3 (B´) correspond in that in B Naomi opens the dialogue by urging the young women to return home and then invokes the name of Yahweh to bless them, whereas in B´ Ruth brings the dialogue to a close by reducing Naomi to silence through her moving speech of commitment, at the end of which she invokes the name of Yahweh in an oath. The narrative transitions C and C´ form a dramatic inclusio that ties the whole passage together, for they contain the same actions of kissing good-bye and weeping loudly. These two actions are, however, arranged chiastically and combined with one dramatic contrast in content:

The contrast in meaning comes with the reversal of subjects and objects in X and X´ (see Trible, 171). Orpah’s kiss of farewell signals her decision to leave as Naomi wishes. Ruth’s action is equally expressive, but it signals her refusal to accept leaving. In the Hebrew, her action is strongly contrasted with that of Orpah’s by the inversion of subject and object:

The hinge of the chiasm is vv 10–13, comprising the young women’s initial refusal and Naomi’s reply. In it she addresses them three times, each time as “my daughters” (11b, 12a, 13c). Her impassioned plea builds up through each of the three units, which consist of carefully balanced couplets (see also Porten, GCA 7 [1978] 27–28). The first unit consists of a pair of rhetorical questions:

11b

“Go back, my daughters!

11c

Why will you come with me?

11d

Do I yet have sons within me …?”

The second unit first answers these rhetorical questions and then continues with a balanced conditional sentence that concludes with another pair of rhetorical questions, each pair introduced by the same Hebrew particle:

12a

“Go back, my daughters! Go!

(כי)

12b

For I am too old to have a husband!

(כי)

12c

Even if I said that there was hope for me—

(גם)

12d

indeed if I had a husband this night

(וגם)

12e

and actually bore sons—

(הלהן)

13a

Would you wait for them until they grew up?

(הלהן)

13b

Would you go without a husband for them?”

The third unit consists of a couplet that reaches an irrefutable conclusion by moving from the absurdity of the previous rhetorical questions to the statement of Yahweh’s past action (Porten, GCA 7 [1978] 27–28):

13c

“No, my daughters!”

(כי)

13d

For my life is much too bitter for you to share,

(כי)

13e

for Yahweh has stretched out his hand against me.”

Note how each of the last four sets of couplets begins with the same Hebrew word and how the final couplet is emphasized by the poignant alliteration of mem and yodh: כי־מר־לי מאר מכם כי־יצאה בי יר־יהוה ki mar lî meʾöd mikkem kî yāṣéʾ āh bî yad Yhwh.

Finally, Ruth’s moving speech of commitment to Naomi in vv 16–17 consists of a series of five pairs of clauses that compose another chiasm:

The introductory imperative, A, and concluding oath, A´, enclose three pairs of parallel clauses, B, C, and B´.

The outer pair B and B´ correspond in form and content. In form they are verbal sentences, contrasting with the nominal construction of C. In content they encompass all of life. The first pair of clauses, B, set forth opposite activities, “travel” (הלך) and “stay” (לין), a literary device (merism), which is equivalent to saying “everywhere”: whatever activity in life Naomi engages in, so also will Ruth. The third pair of clauses, B´, takes Ruth’s commitment to the end of life itself: not even the place of burial will separate her from Naomi. In the short, staccato pair of nominal clauses, C, enclosed by B and B´, Ruth picks up the language used by Naomi in v 15, when she urged Ruth to follow Orpah’s example and return to “her people and her god,” and rejects her argument by the affirmation “Your people will be my people, and your God, my God.”

Finally, this clear structure and balance strongly suggest that de Moor erred in his decision not to combine vv 6–14 (his “Canto B”) and vv 15–22 (his “Canto C”) into one larger unit (Or 53 [1984] 283).

Comment

7 וּשְׁתֵּי כַלֹּתֶיהָ עִמָּהּ, “together with her two daughters-in-law.” This clause is markedly circumstantial (see HebS § 494), thus enabling the author to make Naomi alone the subject of the verb in the main clause. Contrast the compound subject of the first verb of v 6. On the reason for this construction, see Explanation.

וַתֵּלַכְנָה בַרֶּרֶךְ לָשׁוּב אֶל־אֶרֶץ יְהוּדָה, lit. “and they went on the road to return to the land of Judah.” With the verb ותלכנה, our author finally adopts the plural form of the verb that the implied subject (Naomi and the two young women) leads one to expect (see Explanation). For a smooth English translation, we have rendered “they went on the road” by “they took the road.” The clause beginning לשׁוב, “to return,” can only be an adverbial clause of purpose modifying the verb ותלכנה, “they traveled.” The infinitive לשׁוב cannot be understood as a gerund modifying “road,” i.e., “road leading back” (contra Campbell, 64).

8 לֵכְנָה שֹּׁבְנָה אִשָּׁה לְבֵית אִמָּהּ, “Come, return each of you to her mother’s house.” The feminine plural imperative לֵכְנָה, lit. “go,” must be understood as the “expletive” use, i.e., an introductory word used to gain attention, much as English “come, come on” (see BDB 5.f[2], p. 234; HALOT, 2, p. 246; cf. 1 Sam 9:9). A more colloquial rendering might be “Well!” or “Well now!” (cf. Rudolph, “Wohlan”). The usage in v 12 is quite different (contra Campbell).

That Naomi urges the young women to return “each to her mother’s house” seems most unusual, for elsewhere in the OT a widow returns to her father’s house (e.g., Gen 38:11; Lev 22:13; cf. Num 30:17; Deut 22:21; Judg 19:2, 3). The commentaries engage in a number of rationalizing explanations: e.g., the fathers are already dead; mothers are named since they know best how to console; the reference suggests the existence of a matriarchal society (cf. Rudolph, Campbell). All of these are either strained or improbable or both. Dommershausen’s explanation (“Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle,” 397) that the words were chosen to achieve parallelism and alliteration between the expressions אשׁה לבית אמה in v 8 and אתך נשׁוב לעמך in v 10 is very forced, while the suggestion of Campbell (64) and Hubbard (102–3), based on references to the “mother’s house” in Gen 24:28; Cant 3:4; 8:2, that the phrase is used here because the mother’s house was customarily the locus for discussion and planning for marriage is predicated on the slimmest of evidence. The best we can do is observe that the OT does refer to the mother’s house in Gen 24:28 (which passage also refers to the father’s house in v 23; as Campbell notes) and Cant 3:4; 8:2, which could mean either that wives could have separate areas of residence in the polygamous patriarchal family or that the family residence could be referred to as the “mother’s house” under appropriate circumstances. However that may be, granted the availability of this way of speaking, it can be argued that it is singularly appropriate here: it emphasizes the contrast Naomi wishes to make—a widow should return to her mother and not stay with her mother-in-law (Porten, GCA 7 [1978] 26; cf. Trible, 169).

… יַעַשׂה יהוה עִמָּכֶם חֶסֶר כַּאֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם, “May Yahweh deal kindly and faithfully with you as you have done …” In the forms עמכם, “with you,” and עשׂיתם, “you have done,” in v8, we have masculine plural forms instead of the expected feminine plural forms. This occurs in five other places in Ruth: לכם, “to you,” 1:9, 11; מכם, “more than you,” 1:13; and שׁתיהם, “the two of them,” 1:19, 4:11. This phenomenon, which occurs more frequently in the later books (GBH § 149b), has been regarded as a result of the influence of the colloquial language on the literary idiom (GKC § 135o). Campbell (65), however, has given a full presentation of the explanation of F. I. Andersen that these forms in Ruth are the remains of an early Hebrew dual suffix that ended in -m just as the masculine plural suffix did, but with a different vocalization (cf. also Rendsburg, JANES 12 [1980] 77). In support of the thesis, it is worth noting that those Semitic languages that do have a dual, such as Arabic and Ugaritic, do indeed build those forms that do not distinguish gender by a vocalic modification of the masculine form. In the course of the development of the language, the dual ceased to be used, so these forms in the text of the OT were replaced by the standard masculine and feminine plural forms. All seven such “confusions” in Ruth are indeed cases in which the suffix refers to two women. The hypothesis is most attractive. It must be noted, however, that there are four occurrences of suffixes referring to two women that are feminine plural—להן, “(she kissed) them,” 1:9b; באנה, “their coming,” 1:19 (2x); and עליהן, “over them,” 1:19—and so could not be originally duals later repointed. But once the dual was lost in the spoken language, such (largely unconscious?) corrections to conform to current usage would inevitably have taken place. (On the form המה in v 22, see the Comment there.)

כַּאֲשֶׁר עֲשִׂיתֶם עִם־הַמֵּתִים וְעִמָּרִי, “as you have done with the dead and with me.” “The dead” here is simply Naomi’s way of referring in general to her two sons, now deceased, formerly the husbands of the two young women. She obviously refers to the faithfulness of Ruth and Orpah both to her and to these dear departed during the ten years (v 4) of their married life together. There is no need to force the significance of “the dead” and conclude with Hubbard (104) that “their kindness to her in some unspecified way benefited the dead, that is, that loyalty to her was loyalty to the dead and vice versa. The words may have assumed a belief that the dead experienced in the afterlife the fortunes of their living relatives.…”

9 יִתֵּן יָהוָה לְכֶ֔ם וּמְצֶאןָ, “May Yahweh grant that each of you may find.” The syntax here is difficult. It consists of a jussive verb יתן, “may (Yahweh) grant,” followed by a clause consisting of the connective ו, “and,” joined to an imperative מצאן, “find.” Many commentators (e.g., Gerleman, Rudolph, Sasson) follow Joüon (GBH § 177h) in seeing the second clause as the object of the first verb, “grant.” Campbell (66) objects to this on the basis that in none of the other examples of the phenomenon is the second verb an imperative. He proposes adopting the analysis of GKC § 110i, which cites a number of passages where a jussive form is resumed with an imperative plus “and” and expresses an intended consequence (e.g., Gen 20:7), i.e., “may Yahweh grant to you so that you may find.” The difficulty with this solution is that we are then left with no object for the verb “grant” in the first clause. The various objects supplied by the versions really only show that they too were wrestling with unusual syntax (so also de Waard-Nida). Since it seems quite unlikely that the object of the verb “grant” would have disappeared from the whole Hebrew textual tradition, we have adopted Joüon’s solution, in spite of the lack of a close parallel to the case here (cf. Hubbard, 98 n. 11).

מְנוּחָ֔ה אִשָּׁה בֵּית אִישָׁהּ, lit. “repose each in the house of her husband.” It is syntactically most improbable, if not impossible, to understand אשׁה בית אישׁה as in apposition to מנוחה with Witzenrath (18, 99; followed by Hubbard, 98 n. 13: “a place of settled security, namely a home with her husband”). To begin with, אשׁה is patently not in apposition with מנוחה but forms the subject of the verb as the distributive “each,” which regularly construes with the plural verb (cf. GKC § 139b n. 1). Second, the appositive regularly follows the head noun immediately, without any intervening vocable. Third, it is most improbable for the appositive to be definite, “the house of her husband,” and the head noun indefinite, simply מנוחה, “repose, place of rest.” Hence, בית אישׁה must be adverbial, as it has generally been taken by commentators (cf. Gerleman, 17; Joüon, 37, Rudolph, 40; Sasson, 24; and others). In such locative adverbial expressions using בית, “house of,” one may have either בית alone, with the locative sense implied, or specifically בבית, “in the house of” (e.g., cf. in very similar context Num 30:4 vs. 30:11; 2 Kgs 11:4b vs. 4d; cf. GBH § 133c; Brockelmann, Syntax § 81a).

וַתִּשַּׁק לָהֶן וַתִּשּׂאנָה קוֹלָן וַתִּבְכֶּינָה, “She kissed them good-bye, and they all wept and sobbed loudly.” נשׁק can mean simply “to kiss,” but it is used here and elsewhere (cf. Gen 31:28; 1 Kgs 19:20) as a gesture of farewell (cf. Hubbard, 98 n. 14). On this gesture, cf. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication, 330–34. The idiom ותּשׂאנה קולן ותבכינה, “they lifted up their voices and wept,” is an example of hendiadys. The one meaning conveyed by the two coordinated expressions is “to weep with loud cries and sobs” (see de Waard-Nida, 13; for the force of the idiom “to raise the voice,” cf. Isa 52:8). The force of this idiom would not be conveyed by a literal translation, for English idiom is different. The “all” is necessary; without it the translation would most likely be taken to mean that only the two girls wept. However, the feminine plural suffix on קולן, “their voices,” shows that all three did so (contra de Waard-Nida, 13; cf. Campbell, 66).

10 כִּי־אִתָּךְ נָשׁוּב לְעַמֵּךְ, “No, we will go with you back to your people!” (For the nuance “want to” for the imperfect tense, see GBH § 113n.) The force of כי here is problematic. It could simply be understood as an example of the so-called recitative use introducing direct discourse (cf. HebS § 452; GKC § 157b). But the context rather clearly implies an adversative sense. כי, however, regularly has an adversative force only after a preceding negative clause (HebS § 447, 555; GKC § 163a). Without a preceding negative, the idiom is regularly לא כי (e.g., Gen 18:15; 19:2; for a full list, see Joüon, 38). Consequently, Joüon (38; followed by Rudolph, 40) feels it necessary to read לא either instead of or after the לה immediately preceding כי־אתך. However, כי alone can express adversative/negative if a preceding negation is implied (cf. KB3; 3.c.; Brockelmann, Syntax § 134a; e.g., Gen 31:16; cf. Campbell, 66, and note esp. Schoors, OTS 21 [1981] 253). Rudolph appeals to the negative adverbs used here by LXX, OL, and Syr. But this in no way necessarily implies a different Hebrew text. These versions either understood כי itself as an adversative (as just noted) or else translated according to sense. By placing אתך, “with you,” before the verb, emphasis is placed upon it. We have attempted to express this by the order “to go with you back …” instead of “to go back with you …”

11 לַמַּה תֵלַכְנָה עִמִּי, “Why will you come with me?” It is important to recognize that this question is not eliciting facts or seeking an explanation. It is an example of the use of questions in what Hyman calls “the critical/corrective sense” (see HS 24 [1983] 17–24) and what BDB ([a], p. 554) calls “in expostulation.” Hyman explains in USQR 39 (1984) 190:

The context of chapter 1:8–14 and the accompanying imperatives which she uses indicate that, on the contrary, Naomi is critical of Orpah and Ruth and seeks to correct their behavior. A triple transformation—which is necessary when a question functions in a critical/corrective manner—shows the real meaning of Naomi’s question. (The triple transformation, which an addressee performs automatically and instantly, consists of switching the valence of the question from positive to negative or vice versa: changing the grammatical form from interrogative to declarative and/or imperative; and modifying the words themselves in order to arrive at the question’s emotional meaning.) Transformed, the question reads, “You are wrong to go with me; you should not go; there is no point to it.”

Naomi is not seeking information, nor is she expressing “joyful acknowledgement tinged with a slight reproach at the excessive kindness or consideration of another” (Barr, JTS 36 [1985] 33). She is expostulating. Her following utterances corroborate this, both in their form as rhetorical questions and in their content (see Explanation). That such expostulation is implied by the use of למה instead of מרוע (Hyman, HS 24 [1983] 19–20) cannot be substantiated, however; see Barr, JTS 36 (1985) 1–33.

הַעוֹר־לִי בָנִים בְּמֵעַי, “Do I yet have sons within me …?” Naomi does not use one of the ordinary words for “womb” here (e.g., רחם or בטן) but a more general term, מעים, used of men or women, that means “insides, intestines, abdomen, inner parts.” When used of a woman outside of the Ruth passage, it occurs only in poetic parallelism with the more specific term בטן, “womb, belly” (Gen 25:23; Isa 49:1; Ps 71:6). Used by itself, then, it has a more general force than “womb.”

12 כִּי זָקַנְתִּי מִהְיוֹת לְאִישׁ, “For I am too old to have a husband.” The force of מן in מהיות is not strictly comparative. If so, Naomi would be saying “I am older than …” Rather, this is the use described in GKC § 133c, called by others “the absolute comparative (or elative)” (HebS § 318) or “the comparative of compatibility” (IBHS § 14.4f), expressing the idea that the quality involved is “too great/small, much/little for (cf. Exod 18:18). This use, quite clear here, will be important for the exegesis of v 13. The idiom היה לאישׁ, “to belong to a man (as wife),” using the idiom for “to have,” היה ל ֞, “to be to,” is the regular idiom for “to have a husband” (cf. KB37.b.; e.g., Jer 3:1). Naomi, of course, does not mean in this context that she is too old to marry, regardless of how Israelite society resolved the status of an older widow without sons. She means she is too old to have sexual relations that would result in pregnancy (cf. Sasson).

כִּי אָמַרְתִּי יֶשׁ־לִי תִקְוָה גַּם הָיִיתּי הַלַּיְלָה לְאִ֔ישׁ וְגַם יָלַרְתִּי בָנִים, “Even if I said that there was hope for me—indeed if I had a husband this night and actually bore sons.” In agreement with most commentators, it is best to take the last three clauses of v 12, beginning with כי, and the first two clauses of v 13, each of which commences with הלהן, as a complex conditional sentence, in spite of the difficulties. That the apodosis begins at the start of v 13 is certain, however one construes the problematic הלהן, but the construction of the protasis is less clear. The uncertainty is occasioned by (1) the fact that כי rarely introduces a contrary-to-fact condition; (2) the lack of any waw connective between the first two clauses (the second clause beginning with גם, not וגם); (3) the difficulty of interpreting the force of the … וגם גם, which introduces the last two clauses; and (4) a certain semantic inappropriateness between the first clause, which speaks only of having hope, and the second two, which speak specifically of having a husband that night and bearing sons. Let us deal with these problems in the order mentioned: (1) The use of כי to introduce a contary-to-fact condition is rare but not unexampled: e.g., Jer 51:55; cf. HebS § 517; GBH § 167i. The perfect tense of the following verb is normal for such a condition (HebS § 516; GKC § 159l). It is the perfect tense of the verb in this clause that makes it impossible to understand it as a result clause attached to the preceding sentence: “I am too old to have a husband that I might say: ‘I have hope!’ …,” so that the next sentence begins with the following clause introduced by גם (contra Campbell, 68). However, rather than the conditional sense per se, it makes better sense in the context to understand the כי here as a concessive, “even if, although,” as noted by Vriezen (“Einige Notizen zur … kî,” 268–69; cf. HebS § 448), although the difference in meaning between the conditional and concessive conceptions is slight indeed, particularly here (cf. the remarks of Schoors, OTS21 [1981] 271). (2) and (3) The two clauses introduced by גם could then be understood as further concessive clauses (cf. HebS § 382; Hubbard, 107 n. 7). However, the lack of waw connective on the first גם makes this problematical. In this light the two clauses are best understood as further conditional/ concessive clauses with the conditional/concessive particle understood from the first clause (cf. the similar phenomenon with אם in Esth 8:5). The גם in each clause has then intensive force (HebS § 379; GKC § 153; so also Rudolph), and there is no connective ו, “and,” between these two clauses and the first because they are parenthetical—Naomi specifies in detail what she means by having hope: “Even if I said that there was hope for me—indeed had a husband this night and bore sons.” This relieves the semantic inappropriateness between the clauses, mentioned above, which arises if they are understood as coordinate: “Even if I said there was hope for me and even if I had a husband this night and bore sons.” Hubbard’s view (107 n. 8) that the second גם has “additive” force, “and also,” is most improbable in the context. Campbell (67) attempts to handle the וגם … גם by finding in Ps 119:23 another example of גם introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence that contains a perfect verb. This passage is far better understood, however, as a further example of the concessive clause noted above (cf. also Ps 95:9; Neh 6:1, among others).

13 הֲלָהֵן בְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה עַר אֲשֶׁר יִגְרָּלוּ, “would you wait for them until they grew up?” The form ללהֲלָהֵן has been much discussed. As pointed, it can be the interrogative particle הֵֽ plus the preposition ל, “to, for,” plus the third person feminine plural pronominal suffix הן, “them.” The feminine plural suffix makes most difficult sense in the context. Gerleman’s view (17) that the feminine plural here has a neuter sense and refers to the condition Naomi has just mentioned in the protasis is most unlikely (Rudolph, 40). Holladay accepts this etymology but assumes the derived sense of “therefore,” borrowed by biblical Aramaic (CHALOT, הֵן II, p. 82; לָהֵן, p. 173; לָהֵן I, p. 410). Others suggest that it is a borrowing of the identical Aramaic particle appearing in Dan 2:6, 9; 4:21, meaning “therefore” (see Introduction). But, whatever its origin, the emphatic repetition of a particle with such a meaning here and in the next clause seems most improbable (Joüon, 39–40). Therefore, since all the versions (see Note 13.a) read “for them,” obviously referring to Naomi’s postulated sons mentioned at the end of v 12, and since such an adverbial phrase repeated in emphatic position at the head of this clause and the next makes perfect sense in the context, we have followed most commentators and have accepted the emendation of the MT to הלהם (e.g., Campbell, Joüon, Morris, Rudolph; cf. Hubbard).

The verb שׂבר in the piel stem means “to hope, expect, wait for.” Outside of the Ruth passage, it is used only in Pss 45:15; 104:27; 119:166; Isa 38:18; Esth 9:1, while the noun form שֵׂבֶר, “hope,” appears in Pss 119:116; 146:5. Although rarely used, its meaning is clear. (On its possible Aramaic origin, see Introduction.)

הֲלָהֵן תֵּעָגֵנָה לְבִלְתִּי הֱיוֹת לְאִישׁ “Would you go without a husband for them?” The MT verb תֵּעָגֵגָה is anomalous and probably incorrect. Not even its root is clear. If it is from עגה (עגי), it should be pointed תֵּעָגֶינָה; if from עגן, it should be תֵּעָגַנָּה (GKC § 51m; BL § 49v, p. 352). The root עגי does not exist in either Hebrew or any cognate language with a suitable range of meaning. (The meaning of the Ugaritic form ʿgw cited by Campbell is utterly unknown, even its Semitic origin being uncertain; cf. Sasson, 25.) עגן occurs, however, in the Aramaic and Hebrew of the Mishnah, where, in technical legal contexts, it refers to the status of married women when the whereabouts and continued existence of the husband is unknown. It is posited that in this context the verb means “to prevent a woman from contracting a new marriage” (see KB3, III, p. 742; Gerleman, 19). On this basis, translations such as “to shut oneself up” (Gerleman, Rudolph), or “withhold oneself from (someone)” (Rudolph), or “keep oneself continent” (Joüon) have been adopted. However, in the present state of our knowledge, one ought to avoid adopting too technical and precise a meaning for the Ruth passage on the basis of this usage (Campbell, Sasson). As Campbell notes, the technical legal background and meaning of the terms in the Mishnah are obscure and may well derive from rabbinic exegesis of this very passage. The LXX (κατέχω) and the OL (detineo) used verbs with the meaning “hold back, refrain.” Since some such meaning fits the context, this seems the most prudent course at the present time (cf. Hubbard, 112).

Sasson’s view (22, 25–26) that the idiom היות לאישׁ, “to have a husband,” refers here, as in v 12, to marital intercourse, “the pleasure of marital embraces,” overinterprets the phrase, especially in the light of the uncertainty of the meaning of the verb תעגנה. There is nothing in Naomi’s words in this context to suggest that she is using the phrase in this sense.

אַל בְּנֹתַי כִּי־מַר־לִי מְאֹר מִכֶּם, “No, my daughters! For my life is much too bitter for you to share.” The adverb אל, which normally negates the jussive, is used here as an emphatic negative (HALOT, 1.a, p. 48), with ellipsis of the verb (HebS § 403). It is normally thus used to reject a demand (Brockelmann, Syntax § 56a; GBH § 160j; cf. Gen 19:18; Judg 19:23). The grounds for the rejection are introduced by כי as is also often the case with לא (BDB, 1.a[d], p. 519). This reveals the force with which Naomi viewed Ruth’s and Orpah’s determination to go with her (v 10).

The meaning of the clause כי־מר־לי מאר מכם is far from clear. In context the meaning accorded the phrase must meet two criteria. First, if the introductory כי is understood in its causal sense, the meaning of the clause must provide grounds for Naomi’s emphatic rejection of the young women’s refusal to separate themselves from her (see above; so also Rudolph, Gerleman). Second, it must fit with the following sentence, also introduced by כי, “for, because.” At least the following four translations are grammatically possible: (1) “For things are very bitter for me because of you” (so rsv, jb, gnb); (2) “For things are far more bitter for me than for you” (so NJPS, NAS, neb, niv, Campbell, Hubbard, Sasson); (3) “For things are too bitter for me for you (to share)” (so nab; Brichto, HUCA 44 [1973] 12–13; Joüon; cf. also GBH § 141i; Rudolph); (4) The first כי could bear the concessive sense “although” (Vriezen, “Einige Notizen zur … kî,” 268–69). In the first interpretation, the מן of מכם is interpreted in its causal sense (see BDB, 2.f; HebS § 319, 535). Campbell (70–71) objects to this translation on the grounds that the specific and unexpressed cause must be something that the two young women have done and they have done nothing to cause Naomi’s bitterness. But the cause itself is unspecified and left to the context, and the context clearly implies that the cause is the situation the young women find themselves in, i.e., without husbands or prospects. Campbell considers this possibility but objects that this interpretation of “because of you” gives a nuance to מן for which there is no biblical parallel. This scarcely follows; the nuance of meaning given to מן here is simply causal. Surely the situation in which the young women find themselves is just as much a possible cause of Naomi’s bitter state as something they might have done! However, as Gerleman observes (19), this translation does not fit the following sentence at all well. If Naomi is very bitter on account of the two young women, one would surely expect that the reason given would relate to them, e.g., “since you have no husbands” or the like. Nor does it provide very convincing grounds for her continued attempt to persuade them to return home (Rudolph, 41). The second translation is quite possible. It takes the מן of מכם in its simple comparative sense (HebS § 317), and, contrary to the first, it fits with the context preceding it and following it reasonably well. The third translation understands the מם of מכם in a different sense (though a valid one, contra Campbell, 71; Sasson, 27), i.e., that described in v 12, the absolute or “elative” use, in which the idea is expressed that the quality involved is “too much/little for” (so Joüon, Rudolph; cf. IBHS § 14.4f). This translation is preferable, for it fits the following clause better than the previous translation and provides better grounds for Naomi’s rejection of the young women’s refusal to leave her. Vriezen’s proposal that the first כי is concessive, “although,” simply does not make sense in the context (cf. the remarks of Schoors, OTS 21 [1981] 272).

On Campbell’s highly adventuresome speculation that מאר here might once have been an epithet for God, see the remarks of Sasson (27).

כִּי־יָצְאָה בִי יַר־יְהוָה, “for Yahweh has stretched forth his hand against me.” Hubbard (107 n. 13) follows Campbell (61; cf. Sasson, 22) in taking the כי as asseverative, “indeed.” However, this sentence, because of the semantic content of the two sentences, must inevitably be construed as giving the grounds or reason for the statement in the preceding sentence. Hence the כי, whose meaning is regularly causal, can only be so understood here, particularly in light of the serious doubt cast upon the emphatic interpretation of the particle by the study of Aejmelaeus (JBL 105 [1986] 193–209).

Although the idiom יר־יהוה יצאה ב ֞, “the hand of Yahweh has come forth against …,” occurs only here, its meaning is abundantly clear (contra Sasson), since idioms such as היתה יר יהוה ב ֞, “the hand of Yahweh was against …” and שׁלח יר ב ֞, “to send a hand against,” with both God and man as subject, are very frequent (cf. Hubbard, 113).

14 וַתִּבְכֶּינָה עוֹר, lit. “and wept still more.” On the meaning of the idiom “lift up the voice and weep,” see Comment on v 9. עור here does not mean “again”; it stresses the idea of continuance (see BDB, 1.a[b]; note the comments of de Waard-Nida, 16; cf. Gen 46:29).

וְרוּת רָּבְקָה בָּהּ, “but Ruth clung to her.” The order of the clause here, ו + subject + verb, expresses the simultaneity of Ruth’s and Orpah’s actions (HebS § 573 [5]; GBH § 118f) as well as contrasting them.

Rev. revised by

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Or Orientalia (Rome)

GCA Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

AJBI Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute

Repr. reprint, reprinted

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature

a Lit. “and it was in the days of the judging of the Judges.” Some mss of the LXX omit “the days of,” and Syr. omits the inf שׁפט. These readings probably represent the translators’ attempt to render the Heb. of the MT rather than evidence for a different Heb. text.

b Lit. “a man.”

c Or perhaps “Bethlehem of Judah”; see Comment.

d Whether the spelling here (שְׂרֵי) should be understood as a rare form of the masc. sg constr (so, e.g., Campbell, 50; Myers, Literary Form, 9; Rudolph, 37) or as masc. pl. constr (so Hubbard, 86, n. 15; Joüon, 32; cf. GKC § 93ll; the pl. constr elsewhere is fem., שְׂרוֹת) is difficult to decide and immaterial as far as meaning is concerned (see Form/Structure/Setting).

e Lit. “he and …”

f Some LXX mss and Syr. omit the word “two.”

a See Note 1.c.

a The Heb. would be more correctly translated “she and her two sons were left alone,” but this then creates a problem in Eng. with the unspecified “they” as the subject of the next verb. This is not a problem in Heb. since the Heb. verb distinguishes masc. and fem. gender in its morphology.

a Lit. “she and her daughters-in-law”; see Comment.

b Lit. “in the territory of Moab.” That the narrator would have used שְׂרֵי מוִאָב in 6a as masc. pl. constr to mean “fields of Moab” but שְׂרֵה מוִאָב here to mean “country of Moab” (Hubbard, 97 n. 3) is most improbable. See Comment on v 1.

Lit. literally

mss manuscript(s)

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

inf infinitive

MT Masoretic Text

Lit. literally

masc. masculine

sg singular or under

constr construct

masc. masculine

pl. plate or plural

constr construct

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

pl. plate or plural

constr construct

fem. feminine

Lit. literally

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

mss manuscript(s)

1.c. Or perhaps “Bethlehem of Judah”; see Comment.

masc. masculine

fem. feminine

Lit. literally

Lit. literally

masc. masculine

pl. plate or plural

constr construct

x times (i.e., number of occurrences)

x times (i.e., number of occurrences)

x times (i.e., number of occurrences)

x times (i.e., number of occurrences)

x times (i.e., number of occurrences)

JBLJournal of Biblical Literature

GCAGratz College Annual of Jewish Studies

AJBIAnnual of the Japanese Biblical Institute

OrOrientalia (Rome)

GCAGratz College Annual of Jewish Studies

lit. literally

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

BASORBulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

lit. literally

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

SBH Standard Biblical Hebrew

TDOT G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H. J. Fabry (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament

TSSI J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

lit. literally

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

IBHS B. K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

AJSLAmerican Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature

ca. circa, about

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

BASORBulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

lit. literally

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

HALOTThe Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Eng.tr. of L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament

3.a. The Heb. would be more correctly translated “she and her two sons were left alone,” but this then creates a problem in Eng. with the unspecified “they” as the subject of the next verb. This is not a problem in Heb. since the Heb. verb distinguishes masc. and fem. gender in its morphology.

lit. literally

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

Ges.-Buhl Gesenius’ hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, rev. F. Buhl

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

JNESJournal of Near Eastern Studies

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

IBHS B. K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

IDB G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

HS Hebrew Studies

USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review

Or Orientalia (Rome)

GCA Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

P Pesher (commentary)

JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

VT Vetus Testamentum

RB Revue biblique

BZAW Beihefte zur [ZAW]

a On this meaning of היה, see Comment on v 2 above.

b Lit. “And they went on.” See Comment.

a LXXB reads the same as MT; LXXA (and some other LXX mss) reads some form of “father,” while Syr. expands: “your country and the house of your parents.” These variants reveal translators wrestling with a difficult text and demonstrate that the MT reading is original.

b K (יעשׂה) shows the full form of the impf rather than the shortened form of the juss (יעשׁ), which the vowel pointing of Q supplies. The juss sense is required, but either form is correct, since the full form of the impf of verbs לה֞ is frequently used with the sense of the juss. See GKC § 109a n. 2.

a Lit. “they lifted their voices and wept.” See Comment.

a Heb. נשׁוב. For the use of the simple impf to express the nuance “want to,” cf. GKC § 107n; GBH § 113n.

a Lit. “in my insides, abdomen.”

b In a rather rare use (cf. GBH § 119 n. 2), the pf with waw consec (והיו) after a nominal clause expresses result here. See IBHS § 32.2.4.a.

a Several mss of the LXX and Syr. omit הלילה, “tonight” (considering it indecent?—so Campbell, Rudolph, Gerleman). Other LXX mss misread it as חלילה, “profaned.” The MT is unquestionably the original text.

a The LXX, Syr., Tg., OL, and Vg all read “for them,” with the pronoun “them” clearly referring to the sons that Naomi mentions in the protasis in v 12; hence, they read the suffix as 3rd masc. pl. This would require הלהם rather than MT’s הלהן. See Comment.

a The LXX, Syr., Tg., OL, and Vg all read “for them,” with the pronoun “them” clearly referring to the sons that Naomi mentions in the protasis in v 12; hence, they read the suffix as 3rd masc. pl. This would require הלהם rather than MT’s הלהן. See Comment.

b Heb. מכם. For the interpretation of the masc. pl. here as originally a dual ending, see Comment on עמכם in v 8.

c Lit. “the hand of Yahweh has come forth against me.” See Comment.

a Lit. “They lifted up their voice and wept still more.” See Comment. The form וַתִּשֶּׂנָה, from נשׂא, lacks the quiescent aleph; the full form occurs in v 9 (see GKC §§ 74k, 76b).

b Since נשׁק here has the force “to kiss farewell” (see Comment on v 9), the added phrases of Syr., “she turned and went,” and the LXX, “she returned to her people,” are clearly not original, despite de Moor’s arguments on poetic grounds (Or 53 [1984] 281).

a Lit. “she said.” In Heb. style, the change in subj does not need to be specifically stated. Eng. style, however, requires identifying the speaker.

b The LXX (throughout) and Syr. have “an attractive addition here” (Campbell, 73). After the verb, they read the equivalent of גם את, “you too” (Joüon, Campbell). As Campbell notes (73), this might represent an independent text tradition, lost in the forerunners of the MT.

a Heb. שֹׁוב מאחריך, lit. “to turn back from after you.” In such idioms, מאחרי has the meaning “from following” (see BDB, 4.a[α], p. 30, and compare 1 Sam 24:2; with עלה, cf. 1 Sam 14:46).

a Lit. “and thus may he add.”

a Lit. “when she …” Again Heb. style does not express the change in subj. In contrast, some LXX mss and Syr. add “Naomi.” Eng. style also needs the subj made explicit. On the expression of the temporal clause by simple juxtaposition, see HebS § 496; GKC §§ 111d, 164b.

b Lit. “She ceased to speak to her.”

Lit. literally

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

MT Masoretic Text

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

mss manuscript(s)

MT Masoretic Text

K Kethib (the written consonantal Hebrew text of OT)

impf imperfect

juss jussive

Q “Qumran”, “Qere” Qere (To be “read.” Masoretic suggested pronunciation for vocalized Hebrew text of the OT), or Quelle (“Sayings” source for the Gospels)

juss jussive

impf imperfect

juss jussive

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

Lit. literally

impf imperfect

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

Lit. literally

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

pf perfect

consec consecutive

IBHS B. K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

mss manuscript(s)

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

mss manuscript(s)

MT Masoretic Text

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

Tg. Targum

OL Old Latin

Vg Vulgate

masc. masculine

pl. plate or plural

MT Masoretic Text

masc. masculine

pl. plate or plural

Lit. literally

Lit. literally

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

OrOrientalia (Rome)

Lit. literally

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

MT Masoretic Text

lit. literally

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

Lit. literally

Lit. literally

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

mss manuscript(s)

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

Lit. literally

GCAGratz College Annual of Jewish Studies

GCAGratz College Annual of Jewish Studies

OrOrientalia (Rome)

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

lit. literally

lit. literally

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

HALOTThe Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Eng.tr. of L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament

GCAGratz College Annual of Jewish Studies

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

m masculine

JANESJournal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

lit. literally

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

Syntax C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed.

3 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed.

Syntax C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

OL Old Latin

HS Hebrew Studies

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

USQRUnion Seminary Quarterly Review

JTSJournal of Theological Studies

HS Hebrew Studies

JTSJournal of Theological Studies

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

IBHS B. K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed.

3 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed.

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

CHALOT W. L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

13.a The LXX, Syr., Tg., OL, and Vg all read “for them,” with the pronoun “them” clearly referring to the sons that Naomi mentions in the protasis in v 12; hence, they read the suffix as 3rd masc. pl. This would require הלהם rather than MT’s הלהן. See Comment.

MT Masoretic Text

MT Masoretic Text

GKC GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

BL H. Bauer and P. Leander, Historische Grammatik der hebräische Sprache

KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed.

3 L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 3rd ed.

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

OL Old Latin

HALOTThe Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Eng.tr. of L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

Syntax C. Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

rsv Revised Standard Version (NT 1946, OT 1952, Apoc. 1957)

jb Jerusalem Bible

gnb Good News Bible = Today’s English Version

NJPS The New JPS

NAS New American Standard Version

neb The New English Bible

niv The New International Version (1978)

nab The New American Bible

HUCAHebrew Union College Annual

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

IBHS B. K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax

OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën

JBLJournal of Biblical Literature

lit. literally

BDB F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs (eds.), Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament

HebS R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax

GBH P. Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, tr. & rev. T. Muraoka

 Fredric W. Bush, Ruth, Esther, vol. 9, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1996), 57–81.

Bibliography

Baly, D.The Geography of the Bible. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.Berlin, A.Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond, 1983.Cohen, S.“Ephrathah.”IDB2:122.Dommershausen, W.“Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle.” InTheologie im Wandel. Munich-Freiberg: Wewel, 1967. 394–407.Fawcett, S.“Rachel’s Tomb.”IDB4:5.Gottwald, N.The Tribes of Israel. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979.Harvey, D.“Ruth, Book of.”IDB4:131–34.McDonald, J.“The Status and Role of the Naʿar in Israelite Society.”JNES35 (1976) 147–70.Moor, J. de.“The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part I).”Or53 (1984) 262–83.Myers, J.The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth. Leiden: Brill, 1955.Porten, B.“The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study.”GCA7 (1978) 23–49.Rauber, D.“Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth.”JBL89 (1970) 27–37.Sacon, K.“The Book of Ruth—Its Literary Structure and Theme.”AJBI4 (1978) 3–22.Smith, G.The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 1894.Repr. London: Collins, 1973.Stager, L.“The Archeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.”BASOR260 (1985) 1–35.Staples, W.“The Book of Ruth.”AJSL53 (1936–37) 145–47.