Abstract
The Moabite Ruth’s immigration to Juda is regarded as a prototype of a conversion to Judaism. According to biblical tradition, the Moabite Ruth is denied any form of citizenship of Juda, and that means, for the People of God, because of her background. The biblical scriptures explain repeatedly that Moabites and Ammonites have no right to enter the congregation, i.e., to gain a citizenship of Israel (Deut 23:4; Neh 13:1, etc.). Three obstacles prevent a citizenship for the Moabite Ruth: 1. After the destruction of Sodom (Gen 19:24–25), where Lot had settled after the separation from his uncle Abram (Gen 13:12), there was a fatal case of incest (Gen 19:30–38): The sons that arose from this incident are considered to be the founding fathers of the Moabites and the Ammonites (Gen 19:37–38). 2. The ancestors of the Moabite Ruth were still affected by the separation of their forefather. Lot had separated himself from his uncle Abram and therefore from the promise that was bound to him (Gen 13:8–11). He (and his descendants with him) gave away his entitlements for citizenship of the Holy Land. 3. In addition to the incest of Lot’s daughters in Genesis, according to the prophet Amos (Amos 1:13–2:1) the Ammonites and the Moabites also committed war crimes, which prevented that God “brought them back” (Amos 1:13; 2:1). They never should gain any kind of citizenships for the covenant of salvation.
The integration of a Moabite and therefore a citizenship for God’s covenant with Abraham despite of the three obstacles is in need of an explanation. An author who wanted that Moabites were granted citizenship for Juda had to give them some kind of theological / philological passport. The study asks for philological indications that are suitable to shed a light on how the author handled the difficult background of his protagonist. A new understanding of the proper names in the Ruth scroll offers a key.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Concerning the definition of genre cf. Fischer, 2005, pp. 81–85. In the following, the terms “Ruth scroll,” “Book of Ruth,” and “Ruth novella” are used interchangeably.
- 2.
- 3.
Ruth 1:6–8,10–12,15(2x),16,21,22(2x); 2:6; 4:3,15; two times using hifil (“to let sb. come back” or “to bring back;” Ruth 1:21; 4:15); qal stem: “to return,” “to go back.”
- 4.
Cf. Lacocque, 2004, p. 41, who emphasizes that the Book of Ruth insists on the theme of return.
- 5.
- 6.
Ruth 1:4,22; 2:2,6,21; 4:5,10; Nielsen, 2001, p. 20.
- 7.
For basic information regarding intertextuality in the Book of Ruth see Nielsen, 1997, pp. 8–12.
- 8.
According to Zakovitch (1999), apparently the author of the Book already interprets Deuteronomy 23 as it was later understood by the rabbinical Halakha based on the story told in the Book of Ruth (p. 47). In the Mishnah it says: ‘Ammonites and Moabites are banned, and their ban is an eternal ban; but their wives are already permitted today’ (Mishnah Yevamot 8:3).
- 9.
Ziegler, 2014, p. 32: “Names are a primary concern of the Book of Ruth.”
- 10.
According to Gerlemann (1960), Ruth has a number of notable characteristics which call to mind the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis (p. 10). See Callaham (2012), p. 186: Among others, he mentions the relation to Lot’s story, but only recognizes the parallels ‘after the separation from Abraham’, i.e., after Gen 13:11; cf. Murphy (1981), p. 87. Fisch (1982), p. 436, compares obvious parallels in structure between Ruth and Genesis 13; 19; 38 and rightly demands that an efficient exegesis has to consider such parallels.
- 11.
Cf. Braulik (1999) for criticism on Deuteronomy in the Ruth scroll.
- 12.
Cf. the positive mentioning of Moab in Jer 48:47 and of Ammon in Jer 49:6.
- 13.
In Amos 1:13 the war crimes against pregnant women (הרות) are ascribed to the Ammonites (בני־עמון), the descendants of Lot’s younger daughter. Immediately after this, the curse against the Moabites occurs because of their desecration of corpses (Amos 2:1).
- 14.
Whether the Book of Ruth was written by a male or female author or a group will not be discussed here. Frevel, 1992, pp. 23–25, balances pros and cons of the argumentation for a female author, but he remains undecided; see the discussion in Eskenazi & Frymer-Kensky, 2011, p. xvii; Bledstein, 1993, pp. 127,132–133; Jobling, 1993, p. 132; van Dijk-Hemmes, 1993, pp. 134–139; Millgram, 2008, p. 27, etc.; Fischer, 2005, pp. 93–94; Zakovitch, 1999, pp. 33–34; Köhlmoos, 2010, p. XVI.
- 15.
Ruth 1:4,22; 2:2,6,21; 4:5,10.
- 16.
- 17.
Next to Lot’s daughters, Thamar is also included in the given canon of the women compared to Ruth (and Naomi). Therefore, Fisch, 1982, p. 436, suggests the interpretation of Boaz as the redeemer of the deposit which Judah gave to Thamar in Genesis 38; cf. Frevel, 1992, pp. 143–145; Goodman-Thau, 1995, pp. 86–87; Nielsen, 1997, pp. 13–17; Zakovitch, 1999, pp. 40, 52–54; Moen Saxegaard, 2010, p. 13; Kowalski, 2010–2011, pp. 172, 182–183, 187–191, 205; Stiebert, 2013, pp. 148, 152–153, 164–165; Cohn, 2014, p. 171. Köhlmoos (2010) critically comments that for the basic draft of the Book of Ruth the differences to Genesis 38 have to be considered much more than the similarities (p. 80), and that this can only be done with the addition in Ruth 4:12 that Genesis 38 really becomes a reference text for the Book Ruth.
- 18.
Schipper, 2016, p. 41, also points out the parallels drawn between both passages.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
The distribution of speakers and roles is changing. What both scenes have in common is the hosts’ request for their guests not to go any further (Ruth 2:8: לֹא תַעֲבוּרִי מִזֶּה – Gen 18:3: אַל־נָא תַעֲבֹר מֵעַל). Further examples regarding the deliberately designed parallels in Ruth 2:13–14 and Gen 18:3–5:
-
וַתֹּאמֶר (Ruth 2:13a) — וַיֹּאמַר (Gen 18:3a);
-
מָצָאתִי חֵי בְּעֵינֶיךָ (Ruth 2:13b) — אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ (Gen 18:3b);
-
שִׁפְחָתֶךָ (Ruth 2:13c: your maidservant) — עַבְדֶּךָ (Gen 18:3c: your servant);
-
מִן־הַלֶּחֶם וטָבַלְתְּ פִּתֵּךְ (Ruth 2:14) — פַת־לֶחֶם (Gen 18:5a).
-
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
Examples regarding the deliberately designed parallels in Ruth 3:2–4 and Gen 19:33:
-
הַלָּיְלָה (Ruth 3:2c) — בַּלַּיְלָה (Gen 19:33a);
-
אַל־תִּוָּדְעִי (Ruth 3:3b) — וְלֹא־יָדַע (Gen 19:33b);
-
בְשָׁכְבוֹ (Ruth 3:4a) — בְּשִׁכְבָהּ (Gen 19:33c).
-
- 25.
Examples regarding the deliberately designed parallels in Ruth 3:13–14 and Gen 19:34–35:
-
הַלַּיְלָה (Ruth 3:13a) — הַלַּיְלָה (Gen 19:34b);
-
חַי (Ruth 3:13b) — וּנְחַיֶּה (Gen 19:34c);
-
וַתִּשְׁכַּב (Ruth 3:14a) — וַתִּשְׁכַּב (Gen 19:35b).
-
- 26.
Examples regarding the deliberately designed parallels in Ruth 4:13–17 and Gen 19:36–38:
-
הֵרָיוֹן (Ruth 4:13b) — וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ (Gen 19:36a);
-
וַתֵּלֶד (Ruth 4:13c) — וַתֵּלֶד (Gen 19:37a);
-
בֵּן (Ruth 4:13d) — בֵּן (Gen 19:37b);
-
וְיִקָּרֵא שְׁמוֹ (Ruth 4:14b) — וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ (Gen 19:37c);
-
הַיֶּלֶד (Ruth 4:16a) — יָלְדָה (Gen 19:38a);
-
וַתִּקְרֶאנָה לוֹ (Ruth 4:17a) — וַתִּקְרָא (Gen 19:38b);
-
שֵׁם (Ruth 4:17b) — שְׁמוֹ (Gen 19:38c);
-
בֵּן לְנָעֳמִי (Ruth 4:17c) — בֶּן־עַמִּי (Gen 19:38d);
-
הוּא אֲבִי (Ruth 4:17d) — הוּא אֲבִי (Gen 19:38e).
-
- 27.
Among others, Callaham, 2012, pp. 192–193; Hays, 1989, pp. 29–31; Spronk, 2015, p. 271, and Korpel, 2015, p. 152, refer to the meaning of the identical order of parallels. Beyer (2014) speaks of clusters and states that if such references encounter in a cluster, i.e., in a certain combination of several individual references that are also present in another text, it is obvious that an allusion to this other text is intended (pp. 23–24).
- 28.
The term “house of the father” (בית אב) is not mentioned in the Ruth scroll. However, in Ruth 2:11 Boaz praises Ruth for leaving her father and mother. In Ruth 1:8 Naomi asks her daughters-in-law to return to their mother’s house (לבית אמה) (cf. Wetter, 2014, pp. 157–158).
- 29.
Nielsen (1997) points out several parallels in structure and motive between the story of Thamar and the story of Ruth (pp. 16–17). However, there are not as many literary and literal parallels with respect to Genesis 38, as there are between the Ruth scroll and Genesis 12–13 and Genesis 18–19.
- 30.
The phenomenon of the literary-theological reparation of the past (which has to be differentiated from rewriting or reinterpreting the past) does not only occur in the Ruth scroll and not for the first time: e.g., in Esther 2:5 Mordecai is introduced as Benjaminite and Kish’s great-grandchild. Consequently, he follows in the footsteps of the Benjaminite Saul who is Kish’s son (1 Sam 9:1–2). Mordecai’s counterpart is Haman, the Agagite. In 1 Sam 15:8–9 Saul’s counterpart is Agag, the king of the Amalekites. Saul loses his head and crown over the sparing of Agag and Saul’s disobedience to impose a ban on him. Gerlemann (1973) emphasizes that Mordecai, as the overcomer of Haman, the Agagite, achieves Saul’s victory over the Amalekites (1 Sam 15) (p. 77). Cohn (2014) mentions further “countermemories” (p. 181).
- 31.
In Gen 19:14 both of Lot’s potential sons-in-law refuse to accompany their father-in-law, while in Ruth 1:6 Naomi’s daughters-in-law follow her.
- 32.
- 33.
Generally, the “house of the father” is mentioned (cf. Gen 12:1; 38:11; Lev 22:13). Conclusions drawn regarding the death of the fathers or the mothers’ greater ability to soothe somebody are the results of imposing explanations based on historicizing and psychologizing. Campbell (1975) lists some “rationalizing explanations” (p. 64; see also Fischer, 2005, pp. 133–134; Fischer, 1999, pp. 25–26).
- 34.
Cf., e.g., West (2006): “Ruth is our Queer ancestress” (p. 191).
- 35.
Cf. Wetter, 2014, p. 158: “Ruth’s Moabite genealogical roots are replaced with more fitting Israelite ones.” Cf. Cohn (2014): “And by ‘cleaving’ to Naomi (1.14), Ruth takes the part of a husband ‘cleaving’ to his wife (Gen 2.24), while by supplying her with grain and child, Ruth also functions as Naomi’s ‘wife’” (p. 165).
- 36.
Cf. Ostriker (2002): “Ruth’s extraordinary clinging or cleaving to Naomi is like that of Adam to Eve, flesh of flesh, bone of bone” (p. 349).
- 37.
In Ruth 1:14 the Septuagint translates -דבק ב with a form of ἀκολουθέω (akolouthéō, “to follow,” “to succeed”) which is the technical term for “to follow”, i.e., to be a disciple of Christ in the New Testament.
- 38.
Regarding שׁוב cf. Dommershausen, 1967, especially p. 398.
- 39.
Fisch (1982) analyzes the parallels between the conversations at the crossroad regarding structural aspects: the conversation between Abraham and Lot (Gen 13:8–12) on the one hand, and Naomi and Ruth (Ruth 1:8–17) on the other hand (p. 427).
- 40.
Cf. Fisch (1982): “In the reunion of Ruth and Naomi, [...] the old sad break between the families of Lot and Abraham is repaired” (p. 435). See also Porten, 1977, p. 72; Wilch, 2006, p. 144, and van Wolde, 1997a, p. 135. Van Ruiten (2004) understands the Ruth scroll as an alternative draft with respect to the Book of Jubilees which puts the “[c]omplete responsibility for the separation of Lot and Abraham […] squarely on the shoulders of Lot” (p. 46).
- 41.
- 42.
In the comparison of Gen 12:1 and Ruth 2:11 Jones (2016) describes מולדת as “a key word” (p. 66).
- 43.
- 44.
Ziegler (2014) points to the parallels between Abraham’s and Lot’s guest meals in Gen 18:1–8 and Gen 19:1–3 (p. 61).
- 45.
In Ruth 2 the word “water” is not expressed expressis verbis, however, the “verb שאב [which is used here] refers exclusively to drawing water” (Stone, 2013b, p. 192).
- 46.
Among other things, the Ammonites’ and Moabites’ refusal to meet Israel’s people with bread and water (בַּלֶּחֶם וּבַמַּיִם) on their journey to the Promised Land (Deut 23:4), is used as an explanation for their exclusion.
- 47.
See Footnote 22.
- 48.
Cf. the change of word order of “native country” and “the father’s house” (Gen 12:1; Ruth 2:11) or “to get up” and “to lay down” (Gen 19:35; Ruth 3:14).
- 49.
The Septuagint translates one אֵיפָה (“ephah”) in the Hebrew Vorlage of Ex 16:36 and Jes 5:10 exactly like three סְאִים as described in Gen 18:6 with τρία μέτρα (tría métra, “three measures”); i.e., one אֵיפָה (ephah) equals three סְאִים (singular: סְאָה, seah; cf. Mishna, Men 7:1). Consequently, the amount of flour mentioned in Gen 18:6 (three seah) and the amount of grain mentioned in Ruth 2:17 (one ephah) is the same (in LXX-Ruth 2:17 “ephah” is transcribed with “οιφι”); Bush, 1996, p. 178; Wilch, 2006, p. 297; Zakovitch, 1999, p. 146; cf. the three measures of flour in Mt. 13:33 par (ἀλεύρου σάτα τρία).
- 50.
While Lot drinks wine, with regard to Boaz it is not stated what caused him to be “in a contented mood;” cf. Schipper, 2016, p. 148.
- 51.
- 52.
Jones (2016): “There is reason to believe that Ruth and Boaz do not have intercourse during their nighttime meeting” (p. 45; cf. Jones, 2016, p. 179; Eskenazi & Frymer-Kensky, 2011, p. xxi; Zakovitch, 1999, pp. 40, 51; Stone, 2013a, p. 123). Cohn (2014) recognizes a parallel drawn to Num 25:1–2: “Unlike the lascivious Moabite women who entice Israelite men, she is forthright in her approach to Boaz” (p. 169). Lacocque (2004) states that Ruth, the Moabite, is the “Anti-Moab” (p. 13). Cf. Kowalski, 2010–2011, p. 176; Ostriker, 2002, p. 352.
- 53.
Stiebert, 2013, pp. 133–134, 137, highlights correctly that Genesis 19 does not evaluate the behavior of Lot’s daughters. The recipients, including the author of the Ruth scroll, however, could not avoid judging.
- 54.
Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky (2011): Ruth “repairs a ruptured family history” (p. xv; cf. Fisch, 1982, p. 436; Zakovitch, 1999, pp. 60–61. Callaham (2012) mentions the phenomenon of the “reparation of the past” with respect to the circumstances in Bethlehem which are described at the end of the Book of Judges: The “book reverses and redeems these negative aspects of Israelite history” (p. 187). According to Beyer (2014), it is unlikely that the story about Ruth wants to rewrite the past (p. 59).
- 55.
- 56.
Apart from Ruth 3:7 the term is also used in 1 Sam 18:22 and 24:5. Callaham (2012) points out the sexual implications of בוא in those cases in which the subject and the direct object are human beings (p. 183).
- 57.
- 58.
Ruth 3:7,13–14; Hertzberg, 1953, p. 273.
- 59.
Zenger (1992) states the symmetry in meaning regarding “spreading the cloak” = ‘marrying’ and “uncovering the cloak” = ‘committing adultery’ (p. 71). Repeatedly, the suggestion is made that the passage is not about the uncovering but about Ruth taking off her clothes (Schipper, 2016, p. 143; Nielsen, 1997, pp. 68.70; critical view in contrast to this: Jones, 2016, pp. 45–46; cf. Goulder, 1993, p. 307).
- 60.
Feet as euphemism for sexual organs can be found in Ex 4:25; 2 Sam 11:8; Is 7:20. Campbell (1975) notes: “It is simply incomprehensible to me that a Hebrew storyteller could use the words ‘uncover’, ‘wing’ (3:9), and a noun for ‘legs’ which is cognate with a standard euphemism for the sexual organs, all in the same context, and not suggest to his audience that a provocative set of circumstances confronts them” (p. 131). Zenger (1992) also identifies ‘sexual connotations’ (p. 67; cf. Walsh, 2014, p. 134; Fischer, 2005, pp. 202–203). An inspiring perspective is given by Keita & Dyk, 2006, pp. 24–25, 31. They highlight that the scene on the barn floor is understood as asexual and neutral in a certain West-African context.
- 61.
- 62.
For the parallelism of the scenes cf. Zenger, 2012, p. 224.
- 63.
Stone (Stone 2013b): The “symbolic relationship between food and fertility corresponds to the narrative arc of the book as it moves the story from famine and infertility to food and fertility” (pp. 190–191; cf. ad loc., pp. 194, 198–199).
- 64.
- 65.
Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky (2011): “[T]he obstacle blocking their union is Ruth’s Moabite status, the proverbial elephant in the room” (p. xxiii). Stahlberg (2008) interprets Ruth as “an example that might provide a precedent for disobedience of an apparently absolute ‘thou shall not’” (p. 463; cf. van Wolde, 1997b, p. 474).
- 66.
See Footnote 27.
- 67.
Nielsen (2001) describes the repeated mentioning of Ruth’s origin as Moabite as “marker” which points to Gen 19:37 (p. 20).
- 68.
Ziegler (2014): “[I]t becomes increasingly clear that the main concern of the chapter is Naomi. After the birth of the child, Boaz and Ruth disappear from the narrative” (p. 460).
- 69.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
Ruth 3:7,13–14; Hertzberg, 1953, p. 273.
- 73.
Eissfeldt, 1964, p. 649.
- 74.
- 75.
Gen 19:37–38; Deut 23:4; 1 Kings 11:7,33; Neh 13:1; Amos 1:13–2:1; Zeph 2:8–9; Jer 48:1–49:6; Ezek 25:1–11, etc. Brenner (2013): “Moab and Ammon and their derivative generic modifiers appear as a pair 42 times. The most famous of these pairs is the injunction against letting Moabites and Ammonites join the Israelite community (Deut 23:4 = Neh 13:1)” (p. 307).
- 76.
Ruth was the mother of David’s grandfather; the Ammonite Naama was the mother of David’s grandchild (Rehabeam; 1 Kings 14:21,31; 2 Chron 12:13). In a midrash dealing with Ps 40:6 King David explains (bJeb 77a) to his grandchild Rehabeam, who is sitting on his lap, that they are the reason why the Ammonites’ and Moabites’ ban with respect to women mentioned in Deut 23:4 is lifted. Ruth Rab XLI, 4: Lot’s tents, which are mentioned in Gen 13:5, are meant to stand for the Moabite Ruth and the Ammonite Naama; cf. also Gen Rab LI, 7.10; bJeb 63a and 77a.
- 77.
Witzenrath (1975, pp. 356–357) and in similarity to this also Gerlemann (1960, pp. 8–9) suggest that the addressing of Ruth’s child as “son for Naomi” is connected to the author’s intention to alleviate the problem of David’s “Moabite ancestress;” cf. already Joüon, 1924, p. 2; Gow, 1992, pp. 139.205. According to Nielsen (1997) the book intends to illustrate that David’s descending from a foreigner was actually God’s will (pp. 1.29).
- 78.
As far as I can see, Goodman-Thau (1995, p. 88) was the first to publish this possibility of contraction (and resulting from this the drawn connection to Gen 19:38).
- 79.
Cohn (2014), among others, makes use of the term “type-scene”: “By deploying a type-scene, the writer takes a story familiar to his or her readers with a fixed sequence of events and adapts it creatively to his or her own purposes” (p. 171). The term akolouthia which I used implies beyond the matching sequel the parallelism of scenes and also indicates parallelism regarding choice of words.
- 80.
Campbell (1975): “Would he [the author of Ruth] not have given us some advance hint of the final trick he was going to play? Or at least would he not have used a word in the final clause which linked it back to something in the story? These are questions to continue pondering” (p. 169).
- 81.
Moen Saxegaard (2010) gets to the heart of the problem of the interpretation of the central names in the story: “It is remarkable that it is so hard to find any plausible meaning for this name while all the other names in the narrative have rather obvious meanings which are significant for the plot. The fact that Ruth is also the given name to the whole narrative makes the absent meaning even more striking” (p. 106).
- 82.
Ego (2006a): In Hebrew ‘the friendly one’ (p. 974).
- 83.
The similarity of the names נָעֳמִי (“Naomi”) and נַעֲמָה (“Naama”), which occur repeatedly, catches the eye. The latter is the mother of Rehabeam who is Solomon’s son and David’s grandson. With respect to Rehabeam the following stereotypical statement is referred to him three times: וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ נַעֲמָה הָעַמֹּנִית(1 Kings 14:21.31; 2 Chron 12:13) – “His mother’s name was Naama, the Ammonite.” The word play, which is stated above, and the connection between נעמי and בן־עמי only become possible by changing the name נַעֲמָה (“Naama”) to נָעֳמִי (“Naomi”).
- 84.
Brenner (2013) draws attention to the fact that Naomi’s name is mentioned almost twice as many times (21 times) as her daughter-in-law’s name (12 times) (p. 306).
- 85.
Cf. bBQ38b. Regarding the meaning of Naomi’s name Zakovitch (1999) notes that this name does not appear to have an important meaning for the narrative (p. 77).
- 86.
The stressing of the doubled redemption goes in the same direction: Ruth, the Moabite (from the “fields of Moab;” Ruth 1:22; 2:6) and the “field from the hand of Naomi” (Ruth 4:3–6) need to be redeemed; regarding the term “fields of Moab” cf. Fischer, 2005, p. 124.
- 87.
Cf. the reference to Ruth 1:21.
- 88.
Gunkel (1930) recognizes that the writer sways so strangely between the two women (p. 2181). He concludes that probably Naomi was the only woman in the original narrative.
- 89.
Lau (2011): “Ruth’s choices led to a change in her person. […] In many ways identity shapes or even constrains ethics, but ethics can also alter identity” (p. 119; cf. ad loc., pp. 194–195).
- 90.
At this point an explanation is provided regarding the question in how far a connection was drawn linguistically between Amos 1:13 and the Ruth scroll. Apart from this connection, Ruth’s name does not carry any meaning. The name has to be understood from a theological perspective, not from an etymological one.
- 91.
The given proposal attempts to explain how a person with great biblical knowledge could think of the unprecedented name “Ruth”. The author did not put the focus on etymology or grammar, but on theology. Every attempt to understand the etymology of the names will consequently fail; cf. Block (1999): So “the etymology of the name remains a mystery” (p. 587).
- 92.
Korpel (2015): “The major characters in the book of Ruth, Naomi, Ruth and Boaz, are literary inventions with a purpose” (p. 151).
- 93.
Fischer (2005) summarizes the suggestions for interpreting the name “Ruth” in such a way that it has a positive connotation for all possible interpretations. However, it is remarkable that in this narrative with its telling names, it is just the protagonist who has a name that has no clear reference character (p. 35; in a similiar way van Wolde, 1997a, p. 8).
- 94.
The Lord himself made Ruth conceive and, therefore, gives her his blessing (וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן; Ruth 4:13). The phrase “made her conceive” is rarely found in the biblical scriptures.
- 95.
There are several proposals regarding the root of the person’s name who is most important in the Ruth scroll: In bBer 7b; bBB 14b רות derives from רוה – “to feed” (cf. Ego, 2006b, p. 1149: ‘treatment’, ‘refreshment’; in a similar way Korpel, 2015, p. 162); Yalkut Shimeoni, § 600, draws a connection between the name and ראה – “to see”; in Yalkut Shimeoni, § 600, R. Jochanan explains Ruth derives from רתת as she did not shiver. Zenger (1992) favors רעות (“companion, friend”). He argues that the narrator’s choice was not based on the scientific etymologies of these names, but on the connotations that a Hebrew-speaking contemporary could hear about them (p. 36). However, it seems questionable that an Oriental hears any Ajin in רות, cf. Knauf, 1994, p. 547; Haller and Galling (1940) mention ῥόδος (rhodos; p. 3).
- 96.
Within the biblical scriptures, the name is only mentioned in the Ruth scroll: Ruth 1:2,3; 2:1,3; 4:3,9.
- 97.
Ziegler (2014) already draws attention to the negative implications of the name in the rabbinic literature (Ruth Rabbah 2:5) (pp. 112–113).
- 98.
Here, I completely agree with and lean on Ziegler, 2014, p. 112.
- 99.
- 100.
- 101.
A grammatically correct interpretation of the name Mahlon (derived from מחל) can be found in Yalkut Shimeoni (approximately thirteenth century) § 600: “mercy;” for further proof see, among others, Ziegler (2014) who suggests a negative interpretation of the men’s names in the Book of Ruth (pp. 113–117). The fact that there is no evidence for the root מחל in the Bible does not disprove its existence in rabbinic literature before its first proof (bBer 5a–b; bShab 30a; bJom 86b; bKeth 85b et al.); cf. Hubbard, 1994, p. 89; Eskenazi & Frymer-Kensky, 2011, p. lxi.
- 102.
Campbell (1975): “[A]ll suggest the existence of a root מחל” (p. 53).
- 103.
Zakovitch (1999) points out the large number of hapax legomena in the Ruth scroll (p. 36).
- 104.
“Boaz” is also the name of the left column in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 7:21). The right pillar is called יכין Jachin (1 Kings 7:21; LXX transcribes: Ιαχουμ and Βααζ); cf. Frevel, 1992, p. 20; Moen Saxegaard, 2010, pp. 144–145. In Jesus’ genealogy (Mt 1:5,14) both are addressed as Βόες and Ἀχίμ (resp. Ιαχιν in Codex D regarding Lk 3:23–31).
- 105.
- 106.
Goodman-Thau (1995) observes that “Ruth” is composed of the same letters as “Torah” (p. 55). “Tora” ([תור[ה) is the word which appears when reading “Ruth” (רות) backwards. Porten (1978) is less convincing when he illustrates that the consonants of וַתֹּתַר (Ruth 2:14: “and she had some left over”) form the word “Ruth” (רות) when read as palindrome (p. 36).
- 107.
Traditionally, the Ruth scroll is read on Shavuot (the Festival of Harvest), the Feast on which the gift of the Tora from Sinai is remembered. Cf. Zakovitch, 1999, pp. 69–70.
- 108.
Fisch (1982) accurately characterizes the novella of Ruth as a story of salvation (“Heilsgeschichte”) in miniature in a double sense. Due to a structural comparison, he refers on the parallelism of the novella to Gen 13 and 19:31–38 and concludes: “Thus it may be said that the function of the story of Ruth is to ‘redeem’ the previous episodes in the corpus” (p. 435; cf. Fischer, 1999, p. 45). Fisch’s aim is not primarily to clarify the author’s intention but to show the fruitfulness of the structuralist method (in close accordance with Lévi-Strauss, 1958, pp. 227–55) for the interpretation of the Bible; “the structuralist … seeks to be as inclusive as possible, rejoicing when he can bring together many stories under one single ‘code’” (p. 428). According to Fisch, the constant basic psychological structure of a community is reflected in structurally parallel narratives on different cultural levels: “The story of Lot is one of the cave-dwellers (Gen. xix 30). The story of Judah is one of sheep-farmers …; in the story of Ruth we have reached a more advanced stage of culture” (p. 434). Based on formal observations, Fisch placed Genesis 38 in one context with Genesis 13 and 19 and Ruth (pp. 430–431). Fisch leaves open whether the Ruth author wanted to cure the parallel stories; cf. Cohn, 2014, pp. 174–175.
- 109.
In 2 Chron 28:19 this Hebrew root appears in the hifil-form in in the meaning: “to act licentiously”. So Orpah stands for “licentiousness”.
- 110.
Cohn (2014): By “offering a counterhistory, a tale of union rather than dissolution, the book provides a fresh basis for legitimating an inclusive post-exilic Jewish identity” (p. 175; cf. ad loc., p. 181).
- 111.
Due to the elaborate structure and construction of the names, a historical core of the story becomes less likely. Frevel (1992) rightly labels Ruth as a fictional and a true story too (p. 13).
- 112.
The reference to Ezra and Nehemiah regarding marriage legislation must be taken into consideration. Zakovitch (1999) notes that the real purpose of the Book of Ruth is polemics against the normative view of the literature of the Second Temple period (p. 41), and that the polemic reflects a constant struggle against marriage to foreign women (especially women from Ammon and Moab) (p. 39; ad loc., pp. 39.63). For an opposite view see Frevel, 1992, pp. 33, 35.
- 113.
On the basis of his philological-theological analysis on Ruth 3, Jones (2014) notices a revision of Jacob taking away the blessing in Genesis 27 by the deserved blessing of Ruth. Therefore, “Ruth [appears] as the anti-Jacob” (p. 661).
- 114.
In addition to the aspects which were already mentioned, Cohn (2014) points out that Ruth also “repairs” Deut 23:5: “Unlike the Moabites who did not provide bread and water to the wandering Israelites, she provides bread to Naomi” (p. 169; in the same way Stone, 2013b, p. 193). Dempster (2015) notices the possibility for the redemption of Bethlehem with respect to the Ruth scroll, as long as the scroll is placed right after the Book of Judges: “But in contrast to the previous two stories [at the end of the Book of Judges], here is a story where Bethlehem is redeemed” (p. 107).
- 115.
Cf. Hausmann (2019): “the Ruth story can be read as a reaction to the exclusion of Moab in Deut 23, contrasting the former bad experiences with Moab by the lifesaving ones” (p. 182).
- 116.
Fischer (2005) speaks of a ‘counterstory to the Genesis narratives’: With her deed, the Moabite woman heals the incestuous deed of her ancestress and her ancestor (p. 208).
- 117.
- 118.
Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky (2011): “Ruth’s integration into the family of Boaz repairs the breach between Abraham and his nephew Lot (Gen. 13; note esp. the repetition of p-r-d ‘separate,’ in Gen. 13:9,11,14” (p. xxi). Ziegler (2014): “Ruth’s choice represents a historic correction, or tikkun, of Lot’s fateful separation from Abraham” (p. 70). Jones III (2016): “Ruth re-enacts the successes of Israel’s ancestors and avoids their failures” (p. 179).
- 119.
At this point, some fundamental theological structures of the New Testament are already foreshadowed (cf. Adam-Christ-Typology in Rom 5:12–21); cf. Ostmeyer, 2018, p. 169.
References
Bachrach, Y. (1973). Mother of Royalty. אמה שׁל מלכות (L. Oschry, Trans.). Feldheim.
Berger, Y. (2009). Ruth and Inner-biblical allusion: The case of 1 Samuel 25. Journal of Biblical Literature, 128, 253–272.
Bertman, S. (1965). Symmetrical design in the Book of Ruth. Journal of Biblical Literature, 84, 165–168.
Beyer, A. (2014). Hoffnung in Bethlehem: Innerbiblische Querbezüge als Deutungshorizonte im Ruthbuch [Hope in Bethlehem: Inner biblical cross-references as horizons of interpretation in the book of Ruth] (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 463). De Gruyter.
Bledstein, A. J. (1993). Female companionships: If the book of Ruth were written by a woman…. In A. Brenner (Ed.), A feminist companion to Ruth (The feminist companion to the Bible) (Vol. 3, pp. 116–133). Sheffield Academic Press.
Block, D. I. (1999). Judges, Ruth (New American commentary (Vol. 6). Broadman & Holman.
Braulik, G. (1996). Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Ijob, Sprichwörter, Rut [Deuteronomy and the Books Job, Proverbs, Rut]. In E. Zenger (Ed.), Die Tora als Kanon für Juden und Christen (Herders biblische Studien, Vol. 10, pp. 61–138). Herder.
Braulik, G. (1999). The book of Ruth as intra-biblical critique on the Deuteronomic law. Acta Theologica, 19, 1–20.
Brenner, A. (1999). Ruth as a foreign worker and the politics of exogamy. In A. Brenner (Ed.), Ruth and Esther (The feminist companion to the bible: Second series) (Vol. 3, pp. 158–162). Sheffield Academic Press.
Brenner, A. (2013). Ruth: The art of memorizing past enemies, ambiguously. In D. V. Edelman & E. Ben Zvi (Eds.), Remembering biblical figures in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods: Social memory and imagination (pp. 306–310). Oxford University Press.
Bush, F. W. (1996). Ruth, Esther. Word.
Callaham, S. N. (2012). But Ruth clung to her: Textual constraints on ambiguity in Ruth 1:14. Tyndale Bulletin, 63(2), 179–197.
Campbell, E. F., Jr. (1975). Ruth: A new translation with introduction, notes, and commentary (anchor bible) (Vol. 7). Doubleday.
Cohn, R. L. (2014). Overcoming otherness in the book of Ruth. In E. Ben Zvi, & D. V. Edelman (Eds.), Imagining the other and constructing Israelite identity in the early second Temple period (Library of Hebrew bible, Vol. 456, pp. 163–181). Bloomsbury.
Dempster, S. (2015). A wandering Moabite: Ruth – A book. In J. Steinberg, & T. J. Stone (Eds.), The shape of the writings (Siphrut: Literature and theology of the Hebrew scriptures, Vol. 16, pp. 87–118). Eisenbrauns.
Dommershausen, W. (1967). Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle [keyword style in the role of Ruth]. In Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät Universität Tübingen (Ed.), Theologie im Wandel: Festschrift zum 150-jährigen Bestehen der Katholisch-Theologischen Fakultät an der Universität Tübingen: 1817–1967 (Tübinger Theologische Reihe, Vol. 1, pp. 394–407). Wewel.
Ego, B. (2006a). Noomi. In O. Betz et al. (Eds.), Calwer Bibellexikon (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., p. 974). Calwer.
Ego, B. (2006b). Rut. In O. Betz et al. (Eds.), Calwer Bibellexikon (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., p. 1149). Calwer.
Eissfeldt, O. (1964). Einleitung in das Alte Testament [Introduction to the Old Testament] (3rd ed.). Mohr.
Eissfeldt, O. (1965). Stammessage und Menschheitserzählung in der Genesis: Wahrheit und Dichtung in der Ruth-Erzählung [Tribal Tale and Mankind’s Narrative in Genesis: Truth and Poetry in the Ruth Narrative] (Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig). Akademie Verlag.
Eskenazi, T. C., & Frymer-Kensky, T. (2011). Ruth (the JPS Bible commentary). The Jewish Publication Society.
Fewell, D. N., & Dunn, D. M. (1988). ‘A Son is Born to Naomi!’. Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth, JSOT 40, 99–108. Oxford University Press.
Fischer, I. (1999). The book of Ruth: A ‘feminist’ commentary to the Thora? In A. Brenner (Ed.), Ruth and Esther (The feminist companion to the bible: Second series) (Vol. 3, pp. 24–49). Sheffield Academic Press.
Fischer, I. (2005). Rut (Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament) (2nd ed.). Herder.
Fisch, H. (1982). Ruth and the structure of covenant history. Vetus Testamentum, 32, 425–437.
Frevel, C. (1992). Das Buch Rut [The book of Ruth] (Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar: Altes Testament) (Vol. 6). Katholisches Bibelwerk.
Gerlemann, G. (1960). Ruth (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament, 8.1). Neukirchener.
Gerlemann, G. (1973). Esther (Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament) (Vol. 12). Neukirchener.
Goodman-Thau, E. (1995). Zeitbruch: Zur messianischen Grunderfahrung in der jüdischen Tradition [Time break: The basic messianic experience in the Jewish tradition]. Akademie Verlag.
Goulder, M. D. (1993). Ruth: A Homily on Deuteronomy 22–25? In H. A. McKay & D. J. A. Clines (Eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honor of R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday (Journal for the study of the Old Testament: Supplement series, 162) (pp. 307–319). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press.
Gow, M. D. (1992). The book of Ruth: Its structure, theme and purpose. Apollos.
Gunkel, H. (1913). Ruth. In H. Gunkel (Ed.), Reden und Aufsätze (pp. 65–92). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Gunkel, H. (1930). Ruthbuch [The Book of Ruth]. In H. Gunkel & L. Zscharnak (Eds.), Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Vol. 4, 2nd ed., pp. 2180–2182). J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Haller, M., & Galling, K. (1940). Die fünf Megilloth: Ruth, Hoheslied, Klagelieder, Esther, Prediger Salomo [The Five Megilloths: Ruth. Song of Songs. Lamentations. Esther. Ecclesiastes] (Handbuch zum Alten Testament, 1.18). Mohr.
Hartmann, D. (1901). Das Buch Ruth in der Midrasch-Litteratur: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Bibelexegese [The book of Ruth in midrash literature: A contribution to the history of bible exegesis]. Bär & Hermann.
Hausmann, J. (2019). Pharaoh’s daughter and Ruth: Cornerstones in the history of Israel. In A. Berlejung & M. Grohmann (Eds.), Foreign women – Women in foreign lands: Studies on foreignness and gender in the Hebrew bible and the ancient near east in the first millennium BCE (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike / oriental religions in antiquity, 35) (pp. 175–185). Mohr Siebeck.
Hays, R. B. (1989). Echoes of scripture in the letters of Paul. Yale University Press.
Hertzberg, H. W. (1953). Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth [The Books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth] (Altes Testament Deutsch, 9). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Hubbard, R. L. (1988). Ruth IV 17: A new solution. Vetus Testamentum, 38, 293–301.
Hubbard, R. L. (1994). The book of Ruth (New international commentary on the Old Testament). Eerdmans.
Jobling, D. (1993). Ruth finds a home: Canon, politics, method. In J. C. Exum & D. J. A. Clines (Eds.), The new literary criticism and the Hebrew bible (pp. 125–139). Journal for the study of the Old Testament Press.
Jones, E. A., III. (2014). “Who are you, my daughter [מי את בתי]?”: A reassessment of Ruth and Naomi in Ruth 3. Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 76(4), 653–664.
Jones, E. A., III. (2016). Reading Ruth in the restoration period: A call for inclusion (Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament studies) (Vol. 604). Bloomsbury T & T Clark.
Joüon, P. (1924). Ruth: Commentaire philologique et exégétique [Ruth: Philological and Exegetical Commentary]. Institut Biblique Pontifical.
Keita, S., & Dyk, J. W. (2006). The scene at the threshing floor: Suggestive readings and intercultural considerations on Ruth 3. The Bible Translator, 57, 17–32.
Knauf, E. A. (1994). Ruth la Moabite [Ruth the Moabite]. Vetus Testamentum, 44(4), 547–548.
Köhlmoos, M. (2010). Ruth (Altes Testament Deutsch, 9.3). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Korpel, M. C. A. (2015). Memories of exile and return in the book of Ruth. In M. C. A. Korpel & L. L. Grabbe (Eds.), Open-mindedness in the bible and beyond: A volume of studies in honour of Bob Becking (Library of Hebrew bible, 616) (pp. 151–163). T & T Clark.
Kowalski, B. (2010–2011). Rewriting the OT in the book of Ruth and Rewriting of Ruth in Jewish and Christian Literature. Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association, 33–34, 171–205.
Lacocque, A. (2004). Le Livre de Ruth [The Book of Ruth] (Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament, 17). Labor et Fides.
Lau, P. H. W. (2011). Identity and ethics in the book of Ruth: A social identity approach (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 416). De Gruyter.
Levenson, A. T. (2010). The mantle of the matriarchs: Ruth 4:11–15. Jewish Bible Quarterly, 38, 237–243.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1958). La Structure des Mythes [The Structure of Myths]. In C. Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale (pp. 227–255). Plon.
Linafelt, T., & Beal, T. K. (1999). Ruth and Esther (Berit Olam. Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry). Liturgical Press.
Loretz, O. (1977). Das Verhältnis zwischen Rut-Story und David-Genealogie im Rut-Buch [The relationship between the Ruth story and the David genealogy in the book of Ruth]. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 89, 124–126.
Midrash Rabbah. Genesis (1939a). (H. Freedman, & M. Simon, Trans.) (Vol. 1). Soncino-Press.
Midrash Rabbah. Ruth (1939b). (L. I. Rabinowitz, Trans.) (Vol. 8). Soncino-Press.
Millgram, H. I. (2008). Four biblical heroines and the case for female authorship: An analysis of the women of Ruth, Esther and Genesis 38. McFarland.
Moen Saxegaard, K. (2010). Character complexity in the book of Ruth (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2.47). Mohr Siebeck.
Murphy, R. E. (1981). Wisdom literature: Job, proverbs, Ruth, canticles, Ecclesiastes, Esther (Forms of the old testament literature, 13). Eerdmans.
Nielsen, K. (1997). Ruth: A commentary (Old Testament library). Westminster John Knox.
Nielsen, K. (2001). Intertextuality and Hebrew Bible. In S. Sogner (Ed.), Making sense of global history. The 19th international congress of the historical sciences. Commemorative volume, Oslo 2000 (pp. 17–31). Universitetsforlaget.
Ostmeyer, K.-H. (2018). Wie die Moabiterin Ruth in den Stammbaum Jesu bei Matthäus einwanderte [How the Moabite Ruth immigrated to the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew]. In R. von Bendemann & M. Tiwald (Eds.), Migrationsprozesse im ältesten Christentum (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 218) (pp. 153–171). Kohlhammer.
Ostriker, A. (2002). The book of Ruth and the love of the land. Biblical Interpretation, 10, 343–359.
Porten, B. (1977). Theme and Historiosophic background of the scroll of Ruth. Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies, 6, 69–78.
Porten, B. (1978). The scroll of Ruth: A rhetorical study. Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies, 7, 23–49.
Roth, C. (1971). Mahlon and Chilion. In C. Roth (Ed.), Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol. 11, p. 728). Keter.
Rudolph, W. (1962). Das Buch Ruth. Das Hohelied. Die Klagelieder [The Book of Ruth. Song of Songs. Lamentations] (Kommentar zum Alten Testament, 17.1–3). Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn.
Schipper, J. (2016). Ruth: A new translation with introduction and commentary (The anchor Yale bible). Yale University Press.
Schmidt, W. H. (1985). Einführung in das Alte Testament [Introduction to the Old Testament] (de Gruyter Lehrbuch) (3rd ed.). De Gruyter.
Siquans, A. (2019). A Moabite woman as the “right son”: Ruth as Naomi’s and Boaz’s daughter. In A. Berlejung & M. Grohmann (Eds.), Foreign women – Women in foreign lands: Studies on foreignness and gender in the Hebrew bible and the ancient near east in the first millennium BCE (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike / oriental religions in antiquity, 35) (pp. 187–201). Mohr Siebeck.
Spronk, K. (2015). Comparing the book of judges to Greek literature. In M. C. A. Korpel & L. L. Grabbe (Eds.), Open-mindedness in the bible and beyond. A volume of studies in honour of Bob Becking (Library of Hebrew bible, 616) (pp. 261–271). T & T Clark.
Staples, W. E. (1936/37). The book of Ruth. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 53, 145–157.
Stahlberg, L. C. (2008). Modern Day Moabites. The Bible and the Debate about Same-Sex Marriage, BibInt 16, 442–475. Brill.
Stiebert, J. (2013). Fathers and daughters in the Hebrew bible. Oxford University Press.
Stone, T. J. (2013a). The compilational history of the Megilloth: Canon, contoured intertextuality and meaning in the writings (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2.59). Mohr Siebeck.
Stone, T. J. (2013b). Six measures of barley: Seed symbolism in Ruth. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 38(2), 189–199.
Trible, P. (1978). God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, OBT 2, Philadelphia. Fortress Press.
van Dijk-Hemmes, F. (1993). Ruth: A product of Women’s culture? In A. Brenner (Ed.), A feminist companion to Ruth (The feminist companion to the bible, Vol. 3, pp. 134–139). Sheffield Academic Press.
van Ruiten, J. (2004). Lot versus Abraham. The interpretation of Genesis 18:1–19:38 in Jubilees 16:1–9. In E. Noort & E. J. C. Tigchelaar (Eds.), Sodom’s sin: Genesis 18–19 and its interpretations (Themes in Biblical narrative, 7) (pp. 29–47). Brill.
van Wolde, E. (1997a). Ruth and Naomi (J. Bowden, Trans.). SCM.
van Wolde, E. (1997b). Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives. Biblical Interpretation, 5(1), 1–28. Brill.
Walsh, C. (2014). Women on the edge. In E. Ben Zvi & D. V. Edelman (Eds.), Imagining the other and constructing Israelite identity in the early second Temple period (Library of Hebrew bible, 456) (pp. 122–143). Bloomsbury.
West, M. (2006). Ruth. In D. Guest, R. E. Goss, M. West, & T. Bohache (Eds.), The queer bible commentary (pp. 190–194). SCM.
Wetter, A.-M. (2014). Ruth: A born-again Israelite? One Woman’s journey through space and time. In E. Ben Zvi & D. V. Edelman (Eds.), Imagining the other and constructing Israelite identity in the early second Temple period (Library of Hebrew bible, 456) (pp. 144–162). Bloomsbury.
Wilch, J. R. (2006). Ruth: A theological exposition of sacred scripture (Concordia commentary). Concordia.
Witzenrath, H. H. (1975). Das Buch Ruth: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung [The Book of Ruth: A Literary Study] (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 40). Kösel.
Würthwein, E., et al. (Eds.). (1969). Die fünf Megilloth: Ruth. Das Hohelied. Esther. Der Prediger. Die Klagelieder [The Five Megilloths: Ruth. Song of Songs. Esther. Ecclesiastes. Lamentations] (Handbuch zum Alten Testament, 1.18) (2nd ed.). Mohr.
Yalkut Shimeoni. (1962). Photographical (reprint). Thorat Publishing Company.
Yavin, Z. (2007). Ruth, the fifth mother: A study in the scroll of Ruth (the semantic field as a ground of confrontation between two giants — The Judaic writer and the Israeli writer). Jewish Studies, 44, 168–179.
Zakovitch, Y. (1979). Between the threshing floor scene in the scroll of Ruth and the tale of Lot’s daughters. Shnaton, 3, 28–39.
Zakovitch, Y. (1999). Das Buch Ruth: Ein jüdischer Kommentar [The book of Ruth: A Jewish commentary] (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 177). Katholisches Bibelwerk.
Zenger, E. (1992). Das Buch Ruth [The book of Ruth] (Zürcher Bibelkommentare: Altes Testament, 8) (2nd ed.). Theologischer Verlag.
Zenger, E. (2012). Einleitung in das Alte Testament [Introduction to the Old Testament] (Kohlhammer-Studienbücher Theologie, 1.1) (8th ed.). Kohlhammer.
Ziegler, Y. (2014). Ruth: From alienation to monarchy. Maggid.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ostmeyer, KH. (2021). No Citizenship for Ruth? Names as Access Permissions in the Scroll of Ruth. In: Unser, A. (eds) Religion, Citizenship and Democracy. Religion and Human Rights, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83277-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-83277-3_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-83276-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-83277-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)