Ruth Chapter 4

7/27/2019 Ruth Chapter 4

1/8

COURSE: The Narratives of Ruth and Esther

LECTURER: Prof. E. Greenstein

STUDENT: Henry Omonisaye

TOPIC: Ruth Chapter 4:5

1. Based on theBiblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, the two textual problems in this verse

are with these words taemeWandyt'ynIq'the difficulties these raise are

syntactical, morphological as well as the problem of translating the entire verse . The

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, therefore, suggests different ways of reading this text.

For taemeW it suggests -ta, mG; as found in the Vulgate and for

yt'ynIq' it suggests ht'ynIq'as the qere, and the ketib isytiynIq'

the other proposal is to read-hnEq.. These are the textual difficulties associated with

this verse. Thus, we may say that based on these notes of the Biblia Hebraica

Stutttgartensia; there is a textual problem both in the ketib and the qere. This means that

which ever one that is taken as the correct reading, determines the translation and

accentuates a perspective of the story. This will be reflected upon later on. These two

textual problems are also connected because the act of buying the land that belongs to the

dead whose wife is still alive following the story line of the narrator, has a legal, marital

and economic implication for the buyer.

2. This verse without emendation means: and then Boaz said, the day you buy the field

from the hand of Naomi, also from Ruth the Moabitess the wife of the dead you (Q) or I

1


2/8

(K) acquire to raise a name for the dead on in his inheritance. This verse does not make

too much sense in the received form because of the textual problems. These problems are

thus, (a) the accent atnah which is a disjunctive accent is placed under Naomi and it is

immediately followed by the compound preposition with the waw which is interpreted as

a conjunctive waw, with the m and ta the accusative particle, thus on the one hand

the atnah disjunctively divides the verse and on the other hand the waw makes it

conjunctive, thus there is an apparent contradiction, in this vein, C. H. Gordon thinks that

the atnah should be shifted to the Ruth but he does not favour such a shift. (b ) we are

immediately led to the problem having an objectless second part of the sentence, thus

the question will be: what is the object of the verb yt'ynIq'? some have suggested

that the Moabitess the wife of the dead which is in apposition to Ruth is the object. I

think this position might be difficult to sustain because, since it is only explicative, as an

apposition, it may not have the status of an independent noun that could be used as the

object of another verb. (c) Worthy of consideration is the morphological enigma of the

verb yt'ynIq' that is used in the later part of the sentence. This verb both in the

ketib and the qere seem to be mutually exclusive i.e., the vocalization does not follow the

consonantal form. It is agreed that the verb is from the root ynq but the vocalization

makes the verb oscillate between the ketib and the qere. The remaining part of the verse

shows that it is for a particular finality that the acquisition is made. However, the

construction to get to this end is ambiguously given to us either by the narrator or/both

2


3/8

the copyists. Therefore, I think that the sense of the verse will be complete if these

textual problems are taken care of.

3. ht'ynIq' this is the suffix form (Perfect) 2nd person masculine singular and

ytiynIq' is the suffix form (perfect) 1st person singular; both of them are from the

same root ynq. The function of verbs in this form is normally taking to have the

nuance of an act that took place in the past. However, given our context, the nuance is

different, it rather has a contemporaneous-present sense which emphasizes that once the

field is bought, the lagipso facto buys or acquires something else.

InAn Introduction toBiblical Hebrew Syntax, we have a different expression and

interpretation of the suffix form (perfect) in our context, the suffix form that is used has

the sense of an instantaneous perfect which represents a situation occurring at the very

instant the expression is being uttered. This use appears chiefly with verba dicendi ('verbs

of speaking,' swearing, declaring, advising, etc.) or gestures associated with speaking.

yTic.[;y" yKi (I advice you) 2Sam 17:11 ytiynIq' yKi- (I

acquire) Ruth 4:9. Therefore, the use of this form in this context is the instantaneous

perfect, not past or future.

4. V.10, And also or more importantly {-some like to translate the mg this way} Ruth

the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon I acquire for myself as wife so as to raise name for the

dead on his inheritance, so that the name of the dead will not be cut off from the people

3


4/8

of his brothers and from the gate of his place, you are witnesses today. Comparing this

to v5, Rudolf sees it as a commentary on v.5. This reading seems to support the position

of taking Ruth to be the object of the hnq. Furthermore, instead of having the

compound preposition- taemeW we can have -ta, ~g:w> and instead

ofyt'ynIq' we have ytiynIq' the ketib of the verb in v5. In spite of the

ambiguity in form and the obscurity of the content of this very important verse in the

whole story of the book of Ruth, I think it should not be emended to conform to v10. The

taemeW should be left and the m should be taken as enclitic. The qere should be

read in v5. Thus, we shall one subject for the both the land and the Ruth, and a change of

subject i.e., reading the ketib in v.5 will complicate the story unnecessarily and without

any justification. This is because the final resolution of the riddle shows the crux of the

problem on the part of the lag is that he does not want to acquire the wife of the deadbut was ready to acquire the land as indicated in v.4.

5. The nature of the proposal that Boaz makes to his kinsman is a very complex one.

This is also manifest in the way scholars have approached the subject. J. Sasson sees this

as the pivot of the remaining part of the story in the book of Ruth and it stands as the

legal ratification of the preceding idea of having Ruth as wife and of possessing the land

as well as establishing the levirate institution. Sasson and Beattie accept the ketib

(ytiynIq') reading. Sasson claims that the lag was aware of the legal

4


5/8

implication and was not ignorant of Ruths existence but Boaz saying he (Boaz, Ketib

reading) was going to marry and raise children on the property of the dead made the

redeemer to change his mind. This position is of course not tenable as expressed by

Greenstein E, because the same economy factor and loss of the estate of the lag that is

imminent in the reading the ketib is also present in the qere. This is because the son that

is to be born would not be considered the son of the lag and the value of his estate will

diminish by the value he pays for the land; since the land will be for the son alone.

Rowleys opinion as expressed by Sasson is that; the kinsman was ready to consider

begetting children by Ruth without marring his estate, to buy Naomis land without

marrying Ruth, he would have also considered it. It was the bringing together of these

two that made it impossible for the kinsman, and Boazs resource comes out here. His

view separates the two elements- the land and Naomi. This view of Rowley is pushed to a

greater extreme by some scholars who do not even see the institution of the levirate in the

whole negotiation. The basis of their position is the prescriptions in Gen 38:6-26 and Dt

25:5-10 (especially) which neither give an option for the brother to refuse nor prescribed

the next person (Boaz- in our story) to take the place of the one who refused; rather, it

gives the woman the legal right to enforce the obedience of the next of kin even to the

point of publicly disgracing him. Thus, they think that this provision of having the prior

person and the next on the list and in fact the whole scene of the presentation at the gate

of the city was not in line with the levirate institution. Invoking the evidences of the

discussion between Boaz and Ruth in 3:13, Bush thinks that there was a hierarchy of

being a lag and if the first on the on the level of priority refuses the second can take

5


6/8

over and this is exactly what happened. This may therefore be a later development in the

history of the Levirate institution. Another view is that of Zakovitch who, slighting the

economic loss on the part of the lag thinks that the lag did not marry Ruth becauseshe was a Moabitess, this view is criticized by Greenstein E. on the basis of the aim of his

writing which was to see the book of Ruth as a positive model, calculated to counter Ezra

and Nehemiahs measures against Judean intermarriage. The same view of the illegality

of intermarriage between the Isrealites and the Moabite was also proffered by Bal.

The implication of this is given the foreseen economic disadvantage of getting involved

in the deal, the lag rejected the offer and then Boaz declared his intention to marry

Ruth in v.10 to raise children for the dead on his property. This is the way I understand

it. Therefore I think a sort of levirate institution is involved since it shares some

vocabularies and expressions with Gen 38:6-16 and Dt 25:5-10 e.g. Dt 25:6

lae(r"f.YImi Amv. hx,M'yI-al{)w> tMe_h;

wyxia' ~ve-l[; ~Wqy" dleTe rv


7/8

some scholars think it is earlier than those mentioned above( Gen 38:6-16 and Dt. 25:5-

10).

6. TheBiblia Hebraica Quintas notes and the commentaries open a better avenue for the

understanding of the complexity of the textual problem. Considering the different views

expressed therein. I therefore think that the reading that considers different levels of

relationship to the patrimony which accounts for the use of different prepositions is

tenable. Barthelemy already made a similar point as stated by Bush (WBC) when he says

that the dY:mi is from the hand of and taemeW means on behalf of. This

shows the different relationship of the two women with regard to the property. However,

this view is criticized on the basis that no where in the Hebrew Bible is taemeW

combined with the verb hnq to have this meaning. However, a better reading in my

opinion will be to consider the m in taemeW as enclitic.

7. My preferred reading of the text is to leave taemeW and read the qere

ht'ynIq'. Thus the translation is: and then Boaz said, you buy the field from the

hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabitess the wife of the dead to raise a

name for the dead on his inheritance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bush, F.,Ruth, Esther(WBC) vol 9 (Texas) 1996

2. Campbell, E.,Ruth, (AB) (New York) 1975

7


8/8

3. Cotter, D. W. ed., Ruth and Esther: Studies in Hebrew Narrative and Poetry

(Minnesote) 1999

4. Sasson J.,Ruth A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (Baltimore) 1979.

5. Walktke, B. and OConnor, M.,An Introduction toBiblical Hebrew Syntax, (Indiana)

19906.Bibilia Hebraica Stuttgartensia

7.Bibilia Hebraica Quinta

Article:

Greenstein E., Reading Strategies and the Story of Ruth in Alice Bach (ed.), Women in

the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (Routeldge) 1999.

8

Documents

Ruth Chapter 4