Readers Reply

004

Supporting Roles

The Vulnerable Aaron

Elie Wiesel (“Aaron, the Teflon Kid,” BR 14:04) seems to have forgotten about the “strange [or unholy] fire unto the Lord” in Leviticus 10:1–3. In that horrible, troubling incident, Aaron’s two sons, Nadab and Abihu, are consumed by fire for having brought an improper sacrificial offering.

A phrase in the Ten Commandments comes to mind: “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the sins of the fathers even unto the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 20:5). This would hardly make Aaron the Teflon Kid.

One could argue that the sin of the “strange fire unto the lord” was committed by the sons, not by Aaron. Yet Aaron had to live with this the rest of his life. He must have felt some sense of personal guilt—in face of the divine judgment, Aaron remained silent (Leviticus 10:3). Thus, Teflon did not always protect Aaron.

Ruth

Caution: Seductress at Work

Denise Dick Herr (“Men Are from Judah, Women Are from Bethlehem,” BR 14:04) points out that the Book of Ruth contains dialogue and speeches that illustrate current ideas about the differences between male and female communication strategies. Herr gives many convincing examples of male “report talk” and female “rapport talk.” For example, she points out Boaz’s command to Ruth—“[D]o not glean in another field” (Ruth 2:8)—as a typical male imperative, and Ruth’s reply—“Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, when I am a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10)—as a typical female concern with relationship.

Herr’s analysis, however, overlooks the aspect of sexual manipulation in the story. Without Herr’s template of report/ rapport talk placed over it, the above dialogue reveals itself as the coy tentativeness of a first meeting between a single male and a single female. Further, Ruth’s midnight demand for Boaz’s skirt to be spread over her (Ruth 3:9) hardly counts as an innocent appeal to Boaz’s levirate obligation when, as Herr’s own discussion reveals, he is not the first male in line for that obligation. The fact that Naomi is virtually scripting these scenes from backstage gets little mention from Herr.

Finally, there is the matter of the blessing upon the marriage of Boaz and Ruth given by the witnesses. Herr closes her article with a reference to this passage but fails to note the insinuation therein of the sexual seduction of Boaz by Ruth. When the witnesses include in their blessing the line “[M]ay your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah” (Ruth 4:12), they are surely deliberate in their use of the allusion to Tamar’s sexual seduction of Judah and the subsequent calling forth of his levirate obligation to her (Genesis 38).

Boaz Never Had a Chance

Ms. Herr’s insights into patterns of male/female dialogues in the Book of Ruth are a delightful approach to reading the biblical story in our time.

Ms. Herr does a wonderful service in describing “report” versus “rapport” talk. Ruth is very much in control of moving that process along while Boaz is led into an ever closer relationship. In Ruth 2:10, Ruth discounts herself as being only a foreigner. In Ruth 2:15, she makes a subtle shift, describing herself as “your servant, even though I am not one of your servants.” I hear Ruth asking “OK, Boaz, 006just what is our relationship?” Finally, in Ruth 3:9, she claims both an identity, “Ruth,” and a relationship, “next of kin.” Ruth has masterfully defined herself with Boaz by rapport talk.

Regarding the role of women in the fields of Bethlehem at harvest time, Ms. Herr may have overlooked another interpretation that would change how we might view the threshing floor encounter of chapter 3. The presence of women in the fields is well established throughout chapter 2. The warnings of Ruth 2:8 and 15 reveal that the women faced more than merely the harvesting of grain. In fact, in Ruth 2:15, Boaz instructs his field hands not to “molest” (New Jerusalem Bible) Ruth. Later, in Ruth 3:8, Boaz wonders who the woman is who has just made sexual overtures by “uncovering his feet,” only to be told “I am Ruth.” Boaz’s response is to thank her for choosing him rather than some other available man who might be younger and/or richer. This woman, Ruth, in this field, at this time, apparently had options. And by design, she chose Boaz. The conclusion would be that it was not uncommon for women to be present in the area after dark and for activities other than those directly related to harvesting to occur.

Finally, I feel Ms. Herr has misread chapter 3 when she identifies the preparations to visit Boaz on the threshing floor as an act of “disguise” (Ms. Herr’s word). I find it impossible to read Ruth 3:1–5 as anything other than an elaborate, detailed plan of seduction—bathing, perfume, attire and timing are all part of the plan designed by Naomi and executed by Ruth. I don’t think Boaz had a chance.

A Biased Anti-Male Article

My thanks to Denise Dick Herr for her insight into the characters in the Book of Ruth. Trying to understand Ruth’s viewpoint further cemented my belief that Naomi is the most important character in the story.

I am familiar with the general arguments about speech and thought differences between males and females. Are feelings more important than facts? Are relationships more important than results? Supposedly, the answer depends on whether you are male or female. But one must be cautious in applying these generalizations to individuals. The differences between individual females or individual males is so great as to render the 007differences between males and females meaningless for all practical purposes.

Frankly, I was disturbed that Boaz was portrayed as a dominant (or even domineering) male. His verbiage is played against that of Ruth. There is a definite bias in the article. I first tried to view it as pro-female, with the point of the story being to illustrate Ruth’s superior moral position, with her emphasis on relationship and community. But I couldn’t help seeing it as anti-male also, with its description of Boaz as a strutting old blowhard, giving instructions where they weren’t needed and teaching what was already well known.

Further reflection, however, focused my thoughts on Naomi. I have always been impressed by the courage she demonstrated in deciding to return to her homeland. My wife and friends feel that she had no other choice, but I think it was gutsy for a middle-aged woman to trek across the wilderness with whatever valuables she could carry.

Her charisma (and/or guilt-tripping) convinces both daughters-in-law to accompany her across the desert. One of the daughters-in-law (Orpah) isn’t totally committed, and Naomi is able to talk her into heading back early enough so that the trip needn’t be aborted.

When they reach Bethlehem, Naomi proves so good at gossip control that when Ruth meets Boaz, his image of Ruth is just what Naomi distributed. It only takes Naomi a few weeks (the barley harvest season) to decide which relative will provide her with the financial security she needs. She devises a complex plan that relies on her ability to understand the interests of the involved parties. Either outcome of the plan works to Naomi’s benefit, since she will be secure under the protection of either Boaz or the other eligible relative. Boaz, however, is flattered by Ruth’s attention and could be expected to treat both Ruth and Naomi well.

From this perspective, Naomi is seen as a strongly gifted and determined character. Ruth may illustrate the appeal of following your feelings, but Naomi shows the value of relying on facts. Ruth’s poetic appeal to be allowed to go with Naomi across the desert is a most winsome treatise on the primacy of relationships, but Naomi’s plan is an excellent example of how to get the results you want by using other people.

I agree with Ms. Herr that this brief story illustrates the differences between polar opposites, but I can’t agree that the opposites reflect gender differences. Similar “gender” differences could be inferred from the story of Mary and Martha in the New Testament, but they would be just as questionable.

As a believer, however, I ask why the opposites were combined in one story. Naomi may have been talented and influential, but could she have succeeded without Ruth? How well would she have done on her trip across the desert without Ruth’s help? Who would she have used as bait for the lonely old Boaz? What if Ruth had wavered like Orpah? There must be some meaning in the juxtaposition.

My answer comes from the name of Naomi’s husband, Elimelek, or “God is King.” The characters in the story may believe they are “in control,” but believers attribute control (and meaning) to God.

008

Black Soldiers

Rising Above Color

Thanks for “From the Land of the Bow” BR 14:04, by J. Daniel Hays. I have read the story of Jeremiah many times, but I never realized that the hero who rescued him from the well, Ebedmelech, was black. Maybe the people of that day were color blind regarding race. The article certainly gave me a new appreciation for the Cushites. I particularly liked Mr. Hays’s last sentence: “For Christians, [Ebedmelech] foreshadows the future Gentile inclusion; an inclusion of both blacks and whites, based not on nationality or ethnicity, but on faith.” Sounds almost biblical!

The Cushites as Paragons

I found J. Daniel Hays’s description of one African people’s contributions to the ancient Bible world refreshing and timely.

In Hebrew, to this day, “Cushi” means a “black”-skinned person. The Israelites evidently had Cushites in their ranks. In the Bible Israelites named Cushi included Yehudi ben Kushi (Jeremiah 36:14), Zephaniah ben Kushi (Zephaniah 1:1) and Kush ben-Yemini (Psalms 7:1).

Rabbinic midrash makes this all metaphorical, however. The reasoning is that “Cushi” means “outstanding.” The Greeks also thought of the Ethiopians as outstanding. To them, the people with the longest lifespan, the tallest height, the handsomest faces and the most pious actions were Ethiopians.

Jeremiah 13:23 (“Would the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?”) can now bear a new interpretation. Is there anything intrinsically wicked about Cushites or leopards? Cushites were salesmen of live leopards and leopard skins all over the ancient world. Who’d buy a spotless leopard skin? The spots are its beauty. The Cushite’s skin is his beauty.

J. Daniel Hays, thanks for something delightfully different.

Straight-Shooting Tut

I find it most curious that the depiction on the wooden casket shows Tutankhamun as being left-handed. Is this a way of shooting an arrow within close quarters, almost like hand-to-hand combat?

Gay Robins, professor of ancient Egyptian art and chair of the art history department at Emory University, responds:

Rather than thinking of left and right hands in Egyptian two-dimensional art, it is better to think of forward and rear. The king will always draw the bowstring with his rear hand whether he faces left or right. His forward hand will hold the bow in front of him. If one is tempted to translate this into left and right, then when he faces left, one could say that he is drawing the bowstring with his left hand, and when he faces right, with his right hand. This is unlikely to correspond with reality, which is why it is better not to think in terms of left and right.

009

Potpourri

Was He or Wasn’t He?

William H.C. Propp, in his Insight column in the August 1998 issue (“Was Samuel a Nazirite?” BR 14:04), cites the Wisdom of Sirach 46:13 as proof that Samuel was a Nazirite. Sirach 46:13 does not indicate this. The text reads, “Samuel was beloved by his Lord; a prophet of the Lord, he established the kingdom and anointed rulers over his people” (NRSV).

William Propp responds:

I thank Mr. Horowitz for the correction. Sirach 46:13, though often taken as confirmation of Samuel’s Nazirite status, merely refers to his dedication to God, information also present in the Masoretic text. I and others have imported our presuppositions, generating a circular argument. The tradition that Samuel was a Nazirite is, nonetheless, sufficiently attested, even without Sirach.

East Is East…

BR rarely investigates the same topic twice.

In the fall 1987 issue, BR carried Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s “What Really Happened at the Transfiguration?” The article caused quite a furor among readers.

In the June 1998 issue, Herbert W. Basser examines the same story in “The Jewish Roots of the Transfiguration.”

I disagree with Basser’s conclusion. He states that “Jesus is a Jew whose authentic Jewish background and whose Jewish followers’ traditions have been taken apart and reformed in the Gospels into a Christian deity.” The word “deity” sounds coarse when applied to Jesus, and for my taste, it is totally unwarranted, since both Jews and Christians share the same monotheistic conviction: There is only one God; there are no deities.

An effort to make a distinction between the “Jewish” Jesus and his later, Christian role as Christ seems to me too difficult a task to be successful. The Gospels set Jesus apart from his Jewish background. No attempt to undo his uniqueness will ever convince me.

The articles by Basser and Murphy-O’Connor show the Transfiguration a Christian perspective. Will the twain never meet?

Correction

In a footnote to “Spinning the Bible,”, BR 14:03, by James A. Sanders, we mistakenly wrote that the word Septuagint is from the Greek for 70. Virginia B. Bernard, in the October 1998 Readers Reply, noted that the word is actually Latin. We should also have pointed out that the error was ours and not the author’s. Our apologies to Professor Sanders.—Ed.

009

new e-mail address:

bas@bib-arch.org

Supporting Roles