The Story of Ruth - Examination of the Bible Story - Essay Example

The Story of Ruth An Examination of the Bible Story Introduction Setting aside the argument of whether the Bible should be read with a literal or a historical interpretation of its stories, it becomes possible to make forward progress in examining the stories of the Old Testament and the New Testament as a beautiful collection of stories that can address the problems of the communities for whom those stories were written. That these stories address important social and moral issues, and because they weave the inspired Word of God into each story, is perhaps a reason as to their test of time. Whether the approach is a historical one or a literal one, it is clear that many of the themes of the individual stories are themes or problems that communities still deal with today. The Old Testament story of Ruth is one such Bible story that relates a serious community problem that is prevalent today, and a story that has several important themes that serve as the lesson learned for the community. Interpretation It serves some purpose here to discuss interpretation. The Bible is replete with metaphors which serve to enlarge the stories and intrigue the reader and to demonstrate the pros and cons of faith, the moral of the story, and the “I told you so” concepts. “For example, when the Bible speaks of the arm of God, it is not suggesting that God has limbs in the sense that you or I have them.1 It is, rather, suggesting rather the arms of God are conceptually large, that they can extend from the heights of heaven and, metaphorically, embrace or release a person of faith, or of little faith respectively. The interpretation of the Bible has been debated since the time of the Bible. “The highly subjective school of Alexandria insisted that the Biblical writers were literalists; the more objective school of Antioch held, and showed, that these expressions are figures of speech.”2 For example, many of the individual Bible stories reflect on Jesus feeding the multitudes with a loaf of bread and a single fish. What this might suggest, from the perspective of the school of Antioch, is that Jesus satisfied the hunger of the multitudes, which were spiritually starved. That he did so with a single loaf of bread and a single fish, is metaphorically referring to the sustenance of faith. The school of Alexandria, however, would have us believe that Jesus indeed served the multitudes with but a loaf of bread and a single fish, and sustained their physical hunger. This serves the notion of the miraculous abilities of Jesus, who was the embodiment of God among mankind. Modern scholars and experts on the Bible suggest that there is also a male and female perception in reading the Bible. The latter is more recent, having really emerged only through women having earned the right of identity and expression and participation in society. Adele Rein Hartz (2002)3 writes about these approaches to reading the Bible, and discusses the notion of feminist biblical criticism. Hartz cites Athalya Brenner’s A Feminist Companion to the Song of Songs,4 who “defines the task of feminist biblical criticism as ‘reading the Bible as a woman5 Brenner suggests that women and men read the Bible from a trained male perspective.6 It is, Brenner contends, a patriarchal worldview.7 The feminist perspective lending itself to the reading of Ruth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton focuses on the childless life of Ruth, and Naomi, having lost her son, without a grandchild; as two women who before the birth of Obed must have devoted their motherly nurturing tendencies on household pets.8 Clearly Stanton enjoys injecting a little humor into the female perspective. Humorous as it may be, it is no less far from the truth in concept given the modern day community. While the feminist camp raises some good points about the stories and women of the Bible, there is, of course, little to offer in the way of argument at the suggestion that the Bible is a patriarchal presentation of society and faith. Ancient Israel was a place where women were subordinate to men. It can be argued, as Hartz points out, that there are scholars to say that patriarchy and androcentrism in the Bible have been exaggerated. That is really a moot argument in the face of what is known about the historical role of women in ancient, medieval and those times up until the present as being subject to the patriarchal social order. Even now, women struggle to resist that order. “Pamela J. Milne argues that feminist critics must simply acknowledge the unrelenting presence of patriarchy (“The Patriarch Stamp of Scripture: The Implications of Structural Analyses of Feminine Hermeneutics”, 2:146-72).”9 Brenner suggests that there are actually two stories emerging out of Ruth; Naomi’s story and Ruth’s story.10 Brenner discusses this in terms of location, multiplicity of voices, and ideological stance of the Biblical interpretations which would put the Bible at odds with feminine perspectives.11 Brenner actually has a good point, because the story of Ruth, whose central figures are women and the problems women of the day faced, is unique and does not really have a male “voice.” The problems discussed in Ruth are insightful of the woman’s position as being one of being subordinate to a man, yet the story lends itself to independent natures of Naomi and Ruth. Ruth, by way of her widowhood, also has a choice as to whether she will struggle against the patriarch society and choose not to marry Boaz; or whether or not she surrenders to the order of the patriarchal society for the sake her and Naomi’s personal welfare, which would be greatly improved by the surrender of her independence. If one is to consider the feminist perspective, then the historical faith based perspective and interpretation must be considered for purpose of providing a full analytical perspective to Ruth. “Most comprehensive are two articles by Heather A. McKay, which examine the representation of male and female biblical characters as they are pressed into the service of Christology (“Only a Remnant of Them Shall Be Saved: Women from the Hebrew Bible in New Testament Narratives”, 10:32-61; “Old Wine in New Wineskins: The Refashioning of Male Hebrew Bible Characters in New Testament Texts,” 10:62-94).”12 The series moves forward with less focus on the patristic exegeses.13 Jane Richardson Jensen departs from this presentation, instead interpreting Ruth from the perspective of Ephrem the Syrian.14 Jensen argues that “Ephrem spiritualizes the sexual aspects of Ruth’s and suggests that Ruth’s sexual assertiveness may have been problematic to Ephrem as a celibate.”15 The feminist Bible companions help a woman whose Bible reading experience has grown out of a male perspective to read the stories from a female perspective. However, there is yet another perspective and interpretation of the Bible that should be considered here as well. That is the perspective of the African Christian, who are “ardent Bible-believers .”16 Musimbi Kanyoro says that Africa is a continent of hope, patience and determination; and that Africans appropriate the words of the scripture and believe that they are the intended audience for whom it was written Hermeneutics permits cultural interpretation and reinterpretation of the Bible, Kanyoro suggests. Kanyoro, who says she used the book of Ruth as the starting point from which to begin her investigation of the way in which rural African communities read, understand and interpret the Bible. Kanyoro holds that reading the Bible from an African female perspective is essential to the lives of African women. There is no arguing but that since the introduction of Christianity in Africa, the impact on and meaning it holds for African women is a significant one. It has probably not served to lift women above their historical role in a traditional cultural patriarchal society whose customs and rites in many ways were conducive to maintaining the patriarchal hierarchal order. In fact, the literal interpretation of the Bible works with and supports the notion of levitate marriages as being good because they are discussed in the Bible. In rural Africa, Kanyoro says, African women read the Bible in the sense of a literal meaning. The book of Ruth is a popular one in Africa, says Kanyoro. The story is adored. “Africans read this book in a context in which famine, refugee status, tribal or ethnic loyalties, levitate marriages and polygamy are not ancient biblical practices but the normal realities of today.”17 Many African Christians embrace the notion of inculturation, and as such admire Ruth’s dedication, respect, and love for Naomi.18 They also consider it routine or normal that Boaz, as a relative of Elimelech, Ruth’s dead husband; should consider marrying Ruth.19 The birth of a son from the union of Ruth and Boaz serves to support the notion of levitate marriage.20 In African Christian society, the story of Ruth is used as one that women should look to as a model in conducting themselves.21 Kanyoro reports that the book of Ruth presents problems for African women theologians. “The theoretical attention of feminist and womanist theologies is strong, but theologies made in Africa are currently missing the experiences of Africa women.”22 Those experiences are portrayed in the book of Ruth, and serve as reaffirmation of the traditional role of the woman in a patriarchal society. This, of course, is not contrary to the Christian Catholic or Methodist or other Christian faith based organizational concepts. Ruth presents for the African woman not just a role model, but reality of life in the past and in the present. “Feminist and womanist hermeneutics do not share the cultural heritage of Africa, which African women share in common with African men .”23 Finally, and perhaps unsuspecting to many, there is an interpretation of the book of Ruth through “librettos and music.24 Looking at the book of Ruth from this perspective, Helen Leneman writes, “On a close reading the characters of Ruth and Naomi emerge as no more than sketches, with the colors yet to be filled in.”25 Leneman suggests that there are gaps and ambiguities in the reading of the story, and that those gaps and ambiguities are deliberate in nature, a contrivance on the part of the authors of the story to allow the reader to contemplate the ambiguities and to attempt to fill in the gaps. This is what Kanyoro discussed as regards the African reading of the story that allows Africans to relate the story to their own culture and society.26 “What do we really know about Ruth and Naomi,”27questions Leneman. Leneman raises a very good point, be cause we do not understand the relationship as it existed between Ruth and Naomi, but are left to fill in those gaps of the story with our own inferences, our own choices, our own social mores; just as Kanyoro says is done in Africa. More importantly, where was the “girl” talk in the book of Ruth; why don’t we know what clothes they wore; why don’t we know what sort of home they lived in, and a whole laundry list of other unanswered questions that Leneman points out women should have been talking about.28 It leaves much to the imagination Leneman says.29 Leneman points out that the Biblical texts are mostly dialogue, very little description. She says, too, that it is the character’s speech that says much about the character, their dialogue. “The kind of speech assigned to a character – its syntax, tone, imagery, lengthiness – help delineate the character of his or her relation to others.”30 This distinguishes characters one from another, the syntax and tone of their dialogue. “In Ruth, commentators have noticed that the older characters of Naomi and Boaz tend to use more archaic morphology and syntax. They also refer to everyone around them as young, indicative of their perspective.”31 So while we do not know the details of age, or the other information of the gaps, we can infer by way of dialogue, syntax and tone. Leneman lends some insight as to why some schools of thought might perceive the relationship between Naomi and Ruth as different from most relationships shared between women. “One reason every scene seems intimate in this book is because 55 of the 85 verses in it are dialogue. Although the book is named Ruth, Naomi is really the central character, as noted by Adele Berlin.”32 The book really reflects a writer’s expertise in manipulating and presenting the story, because although Naomi is actually the central figure, the perspective is that of Ruth.33 Having explored these perspectives and interpretations, it is time to examine the character of Ruth, and the relationship she and Naomi shared from this writer’s perspective. Ruth – This Writer’s Perspective In the Biblical story of Ruth, she is a Moabitess, a gentile woman, who was loyal to her mother-in-law. Ruth, a childless widow, refused to let go her loyalty to her mother-in-law to remarry a man called Boaz. Boaz would have been an advantageous union for Ruth since she was a childless widow, and by the Naomi passed on Ruth would have been too old to be considered marriage material. Naomi, however, recognized that Boaz would indeed be a good marriage partner for Ruth, even though he was a much older man than Ruth. Both Ruth and Naomi recognized Boaz as a kind man, and because he was indeed a kind man who understood and appreciated Ruth’s loyalty and commitment to her aging mother-in-law, and because he loved her, he married Ruth, accepting her commitment and loyalty to Naomi. Thus, the union proved to be advantageous for both Naomi and Ruth. Love and respect win the day and the inspired Word of God in the spirit of love thy neighbor has triumphed as respect, commitment, loyalty and love win the day. Here, you have this writer’s interpretation of the story, and the problems that it addresses – and solves – in the community then, are problems today and are solved in much the same way as Boaz, Ruth and Naomi solved the problem of Ruth’s commitment to her mother-in-law. Then, as today, the problem within the community that warranted attention was the problem of aging relatives. How do families cope with aging relatives, especially in the case of Ruth? Themes Ruth teaches us several things. First, that commitment and loyalty to another human being is a choice, and one that is made by an individual based on their own senses of responsibility, respect, love and commitment. Clearly Boaz recognized and appreciated the value of these virtues Ruth, as Boaz was himself much older than Ruth – perhaps not quite so old as Naomi though. At some point, Boaz, like Naomi, would be the recipient of Ruth’s caring, commitment, loyalty and love as was Naomi. Ruth is the ultimate elder caregiver. Another theme that becomes apparent in a reading of Ruth is the bond between women. That Ruth can commit to and be loyal to Naomi, who is not her blood relative, but with whom she has clearly developed a bond of respect and love signifies the bond that exists between women and cannot be broken even in death (Naomi’s son died, leaving Ruth a widow). The bond between women is one that has existed throughout time. Communities Staying focused on the idea that the Bible stories are intended to forefront and address the problems of a community there is yet a very different interpretation of the story of Ruth that can used to show how the Bible stories serve communities. One interpretation arises out of the gay community, which, as a community, has needs to be addressed too. The interpretation is that Naomi and Ruth share a relationship of homoeroticism.34 Assigning an element of sexuality to the story really seems a stretch, and there is little to support such a contention. Still, from a perspective of community need, if the story works for a community of people seeking to find comfort in their life choices, and choices which reflect love, sharing, respect and caring; then perhaps the story has indeed served its purpose of fulfilling the community need and in fulfilling the inspired Word of God in love and commitment. It serves no purpose to judge the motivation behind interpretation of the story here. The important thing being that even in the homoerotic interpretation of the story, the story’s themes remain the same. “We may, however, believe in the necessity of faith without joining the ranks of irrationalists.35” The story of Ruth, like all the stories of the Bible, leaves a lot to the reader’s imagination, to the thought, to the perspective of the reader. Just as has been discussed here, just touched on really, the Bible presents the reader with a lifetime of ideas and theories about the past, the present and the future to explore and to contemplate. Works Cited Brenner, Athalya, (2001), Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, Inc. Grant, Robert M. The Bible in the Church: A Short History of Interpretation. New York: Macmillan, 1948. Questia. 16 Apr. 2007 . Hartz, Adele Rein. "Margins, Methods, and Metaphors: Reflections on a Feminist Companion to the Hebrew Bible." Prooftexts 20.1,2 (2000): 43-60. Questia. 16 Apr. 2007 . Kanyoro, Musimbi. "Reading the Bible from an African Perspective." The Ecumenical Review 51.1 (1999): 18. Questia. 16 Apr. 2007 . Leneman, Helen. "The Voices of Ruth and Naomi: Cultural Transformation through Librettos and Music." European Judaism 35.2 (2002): 13+. Questia. 16 Apr. 2007 . Milne, Pamela, (1999) "Toward Feminist Companionship: The Future of Feminist Biblical Studies and Feminism", Biblical Archeological Society. Serapion, Bishop. "Homosexuality and the Church: A Coptic Orthodox Perspective." The Ecumenical Review 50.1 (1998): 78+. Questia. 16 Apr. 2007 . Sterk, Helen M. "A Womanly Spiritual Space within a Patriarchal Place." Women and Language 16.1 (1993): 27+. Questia. 16 Apr. 2007 . Read More