Ruth: Continental Commentaries

LaCoque presents an interesting theory about the author of Ruth, the time when it was written and its purpose. He believes that Ruth is a fiction written by a woman. It serves as a commentary of the Law critical of its harsh and rigid post-exilic enforcement under Ezra and Nehemiah's leadership. Specific customs that the author attacks include ostracism against Moabites, mixed-marriage, right of gleaning and redemption and levirate marriage. According to LaCoque, though he agrees that Ruth contains a lesson of imperceptible hand of God's providence, the book is a subversive narrative whose author argues that it is possible to perform the Torah in a creative and flexible manner, opposing the suspicious and rigid ultraconservatism, "The center of the Torah is chesed, love. Love redeems everything." When interpreted in this way, "...the Law is no longer a means of control and power (at times of manipulation), but the instrument of peace, reconciliation and equality. All legal categories are transcended by an interpretation according to an amplifying and non-restrictive norm."He argues that what Boaz did in allowing Ruth to gather among the sheaves as she requested (2:7) was a generous interpretation of the law of gleaning (Lev 19:9-10, Deut 24:19) that actually allowed Ruth to pick up only what falls on the ground. So was Boaz's decision to invite Ruth to lunch and make her look more like a reaper than a gleaner afterwards (2:16). Likewise, in regards to the law of redemption (Lev 25:23-24) and the levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-10), Boaz demonstrated his understanding of and commitment to the bigger purpose of the Law, namely chesed as opposed to the wooden and selfish adherence of the other kinsman redeemer to it (cf. Mat 23:23).Something I like about this commentary is the Hebrew words are written in Hebrew. I hesitate about LaCocque's options on what describes ish gibor chayil best. He includes a number of possible translations for ish gibor chayil; a prominent rich man, a man of substance, a man of wealth, prominent and well-to-do member. Hubbard remarks that the term can refer to war hero, a capable person, a wealthy man. His preference is to translate it as a powerful person, someone whose wealth and reputation in Bethlehem gave him strong influence among his peers. But wealth and power or influence do not necessarily imply upright morality and vice versa. Boaz as ish gibor chayil in 2:1 emphasizes his character, not social status confirmed later in the story though he appeared to be a rich man as well. Another problem with translating it as wealthy, prominent, and powerful man is chayil is also used to describe Ruth in 3:11, eshet chayil. But wealth, power and fame were not a proper characterization for her, at least before she married Boaz. ESV translates ish gibor chayil as "a worthy man," which is acceptable but may still be ambiguous. God's Word Translation (GWT) is most accurate in my view, "a man of outstanding character" which LaCoque seems to acknowledge when exegeting passages such as 3:10.Eypah, mentioned in 2:17 is a dry grain measurement, variously reckoned (usually about 22 liters of volume), but the text says ke-eypah, like an ephah. Both LaCoque and Hubbard do not think that Ruth literally carried home 22 liters of barley. LaCoque sees the measurement to imply superabundance, while Hubbard believes it means "basket" or "basketful" corresponding to a weight of 29 pounds. The message the author is trying to convey is that of Boaz's generosity and Ruth's industry. In this case, I agree with both.I also agree with LaCoque that paras kanaf al, "to spread the corner of garment on" means "to marry" (cf. Ez 16:8). The word kanaf reminds one of 2:12, Yahweh's wings, his protective cover over Ruth and at the threshing floor Ruth requested that Boaz be the answer to his own prayer. ESV translates kanaf in both 2:12 and 3:9 as wings (plural) while the Hebrew word is singular in 3:9 and plural in 2:12.The biggest problem with LaCoque's view lies in his claim that the genealogy in Ruth 4 is fictitious. If this is true, it implies that the genealogy of Jesus in Mat 1 and Luk 3 that contain the same names in Ruth 4 are suspect as well. In fact, if the ancestors of Jesus never really existed, how can Jesus be a real character? If Jesus is not a real character, then the Bible is full of lies and Christianity is a phony religion. I was wondering if this is what LaCocque is getting at but no reasonable person will be convinced by his claim in this case considering its radical implication. Furthermore, we have to ask whether the ancestors of Israel that the Jews pride themselves in to this day are then fictitious characters. Would they agree with LaCoque that David, Jesse and Judah actually never existed? But if the names listed in the genealogy were real people, LaCoque's view that Ruth is a fiction becomes less convincing. In claiming the genealogy in chapter 4 as fictitious, LaCoque also seems to overlook the plethora of archaelogical evidence such as the Mesha Stele of Moab and the execration text.Contra LaCoque, Hubbard sees Ruth as a pre-exilic historical novella written to win acceptance to David's rule by showing the continuity of Yahweh's guidance in his life and the lives of his ancestors resembling Merrill's view. In addition, the book also conveys the message that foreigners like Ruth who genuinely seek refuge under Yahweh's wings are welcome. But Merrill sees beyond the acceptance of a foreign believer into the Israeli community, namely that Ruth is not only a vital link in the messianic chain from Abraham to David, but also an instrument of reconciliation between Judah and Moab representing God's desire among the nations to fulfill the patriarchal blessing. In light of the big picture of the Bible especially when relating Ruth to the NT (e.g., Eph 2:11-22), Hubbard's and Merrill's views are more compelling than LaCoque's, though the pattern of chesed LaCoque describes as a generous interpretation of the Law is interesting.

Les thèmes traités dans le livre correspondent à ce que je recherchais, sans surabondance et sont tous bien développés dans un langage accessible.