Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Author(s): W. E. Staples
Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Apr.,
1937), pp. 145-157
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528920
Accessed: 15/09/2010 17:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures.
http://www.jstor.org
The American Journal of
SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES
In the past the Book of Ruth does not seem to have received a
great deal of attention. Scholars usually pass it by as of small value.
It is not worth while to squeeze the juice from so small a fruit. The
beauty is all on the surface. The outer skin is so transparent that all
the seeds can be detected without opening. The purpose of this paper
is to show that there may be possibilities in the book hitherto unnoted
yet worthy of consideration.
The casual glance to which this work has been subjected has pro-
duced various theories as to its purpose: it is a historical account of
the genealogy of David; it is a post-Exilic creation used as propaganda
against the racial particularism of Ezra-Nehemiah. When a second
glance disturbed these theories, scholars claimed it to be nothing but
a charming piece of literature.
The first two theories hang together. The book could be used as
antipropaganda only if it could be shown that David had Moabite
blood in his veins. Foreign blood flowing in the veins of any lesser
man would have been just cause for the nationalists to excommunicate
him from their midst. They could not do this to their greatest his-
torical hero.
An examination of the book with these theories in view shows,
however, that no mention of David is made until 4:17. Verses 18-22
of chapter 4 are obviously an addition by a later editor and are meant
145
146 THE AMERICAN OFSEMITIC
JOURNAL LANGUAGES
something prophetic in it. In taking this view we are, at any rate, giv-
ing the cult motifs of the Book of Ruth a value consistent with similar
cult motifs found in the prophets. I shall endeavor to show that the
Book of Ruth is in reality a midrash written after the Exile for the
purpose of bringing comfort and encouragement to the people who
have passed through a distressing period.
A midrash1 may be defined as an interpretation of present history
in the light of past experiences, legends, myths, folk-lore, etc. As a
midrash of this type the story must have a historical background.
There must have been a historical incident to call forth the story. The
story opens with a picture of Elimelech and his family moving to
Moab because of a famine in Bethlehem of Judah. There are three
possible causes to which this famine may be attributed: lack of rain,
locusts, and hostile invasion. In regard to the first two causes the
climate and geographical position are of prime importance. It is to
be noted that the emigrants went to Moab which is east and consid-
erably south of Bethlehem. The rain comes from the west, hence
there is a good rain from Jaffa northward; as one goes south from Jaffa
the mass of the continent of Africa juts up to form a screen to the
Arabian peninsula, and hence the rain in Palestine south of Jaffa grad-
ually decreases until the desert is reached just south of Gaza. The
rain coming from the west, therefore, will gradually diminish as one
moves toward the east until he reaches the desert a short distance be-
yond Amman, or as one moves southward. Now Moab, being to the
east and south of Bethlehem, will receive much less rain in any one
year than Bethlehem. Locusts breed on the edge of the desert and
work toward the sown land. It is clear, therefore, that a district nearer
the desert will be overrun by locusts sooner than one farther away.
A famine from drought or locusts would last only a season or at most
two seasons. This leaves but one occasion for Elimelech's flight and
continued exile from Bethlehem-hostile invasion. Invasions on such
a scale were not frequent in historical times. Districts about Jeru-
salem were overrun by enemies in the following order: the Philistines
after the death of Saul, the invasion of Joash, the Syro-Ephraimite
wars, the invasion of Sennacherib, the invasions of Nebuchadrezzar in
597 and 586 B.c. Of these periods when hostile armies occupied the
1 S. A. Cook, "Midrash," Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed.), XVIII, 419.
THE BOOK OF RUTH 149
district, that of Nebuchadrezzar suits the case better than any other
because of the completeness of the defeat of the forces of Judah and
the length of the occupation. It is to be remembered, too, that Zede-
kiah attempted to flee to Transjordania but was captured. Doubtless
many people of the district did manage to escape to Transjordania,
and Moab must have been as good an asylum for the Judaites as any.
While abroad, foreigners joined themselves to the Jewish commu-
nity. When it came time to return home, when Yahweh again looked
with favor upon the people of Bethlehem to give them bread, some
became apostate like Orpah and turned back, and others returned
with the exiles to become good Jews like Ruth. On their return to
their old home conditions must have been discouraging to them. It
was at this point that our author formulated his midrash in order to
bring courage and comfort to his people.
Had our author been a mid-Victorian he would have chosen an apt
quotation from the classics to adorn the upper portion of the title-
page. For this purpose he could not have chosen better than those
lines from Ps. 126-lines that leave no doubt in the mind of the reader
that the Hebrews connected the restoration of Israel with the world-
view as witnessed by the old cult ideas:
Turn again our captivity, 0 Yahweh,as the streamsin the south.
They that sow in tears shall reap in joy,
He that goeth forth with weeping,bearingseed,
Shall doubtlesscome again with joy, bringinghis sheaveswith him.
That the Book of Ruth is a story based upon cult ideas becomes ap-
parent with a study of the names of the personnel and locality of the
story. The action of the story takes place in Bethlehem. The prefix
"Beth" in the name of a town seems to indicate a place in which the
deity whose name is in the genitive relation with the "Beth" is wor-
shiped. Other Palestinian cult places with names of this type are
Beth-Awen, Beth-El, Beth-Dagon, Beth-Pe'or, and Beth-Shemesh.
"Lehem" may be equivalent to the Semitic god Lahama, Lahamu, or
Lahmu. Lahamu is mentioned as a deity in a Babylonian god-list.2
In the Babylonian Epic of Creationtwo deities, Lahmu and Lahamu,
are mentioned. These two deities were the offspring of Apsu and
Tiamat whom Jean,3 following others, equates with fresh water and
salt water. Arendzen4suggests that Lahmu and Lahamu were the per-
sonifications of dawn and twilight and that their progeny were Anu,
Enlil, and Ea (sky, earth, and water). Luckenbill5 also suggests the
character of these two gods. Their characters are vague, but it seems
clear that they had something to do with the great world-cycle in the
creation and as such were nature-gods. Langdon' equates them with
a monster of chaos identified with constellations subdued by Marduk
and made to serve gods. These gods may have been the prototype of
the god worshiped at Bethlehem (cf. I Chron. 20:5). Whatever his
original nature, we do know that in the time of Jerome there was still
a grove dedicated to Adonis in Bethlehem.7 It seems probable, then,
that the deity Lehem who was worshiped in Bethlehem in the early
days of its history naturally gave place to the deity Adonis in later
days. We can assume, therefore, that Bethlehem was from early days
the center of a nature cult. Jeremias8 even goes so far as to identify
the Bit-NINIBor Bit-Ninurta of the Amarna tablets with Bethlehem,
and equates Ninurta with Tammuz.
The husband's name was Elimelech.9 "My god is king" is an ex-
cellent cultic name. Tammuz was both god and king. It is a fit name
for a man from Bethlehem.
His wife is Naomi. With tZ we may compare of Isa.
17:10. The names 0 7'2 and Ct5rir each have the common tS_
element W: , which is a designation for the old Semitic deity of love
since EY) is the Semitic for Adonis. With the word t:; is connected
One cannot fail to note the parallels in the stories of Rachel and
Naomi. Both were connected with Bethlehem. The dolorous names
of the sons of Naomi, Mahlon and Chilyon, may be compared with
that which Rachel gave her younger son, Ben-Oni. Jeremiah pictures
Rachel weeping for her children who had been killed or exiled (gone
down into the underworld). Naomi considers her name should be
"Mara." Her children and her husband have died in exile. She says,
"I went out full and Yahweh has brought me back empty." Naomi is
the embodiment of the mother-goddess in name, and Rachel, the
mother of Israel, in experience. We also find a closer relation between
Ruth-Naomi and Rachel-Leah, the mothers of Israel. It could not
have been mere chance that led the women of Bethlehem to put these
names together in 4:11. Just as Rachel, the favorite wife of Jacob,
had borne Israel as a race, so should Naomi become the mother of the
new Israel.
The name Boaz is peculiar.10 We meet it as the name of the left
pillar before the door of the temple of Solomon (I Kings 7:21). Philo-
logical derivations have not aided greatly in solving the riddle. Archae-
ology, however, has come to our aid. Babylonian and Phoenician
temples had two such pillars before them. Herodotus found that Mel-
karth was worshiped in the form of a pillar in the temple of Tyre."1
Now Melkarth is the Phoenician counterpart of Marduk-Tammuz.
According to Ward, the column with a pineapple top is emblematic
of Marduk.12 Jeremias13pictures a clay model of a Phoenician temple
with pillars on either side of the door. These pillars have lily-like
capitals (cf. I Kings 7:19). Again, Contenau14reproduces seals en-
graved with symbols of Marduk and Nebo. That of Marduk is a pillar
with a pineapple top, and that of Nebo is a straight pillar. At al-'Ubaid
two pillars of wood covered with copper and inlay stood before the
temple of Ninhursag.15
10oHans Bauer, Das Alphabet von Ras Shamra (Halle, 1932), p. 73, suggests that T'j7 is
an abbreviated form of T7 I?f. With this we may compare the Greek BaXat of I Kings
7:7. This would point to Bocaz or Bacalcaz as an ancient Canaanite cult deity.
11 ii. 44.
12 The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, p. 392.
13
Op. cit., p. 543.
14 Manuel d'archbologie orientale, p. 1363.
15 Woolley, The Sumerians, p. 40.
152 THE AMERICANJOURNALOF SEMITICLANGUAGES
along with the property, for it is only through the widow of Elimelech
that his line can be continued. The daughter-in-law has no legal or
moral standing in the case at all. Boaz was next of kin of Elimelech,
not of Mahlon and Chilyon. These had passed out of the picture be-
fore the property could pass to them. Had it been in the mind of the
author that Boaz inherited the estate of Elimelech from the son Chil-
yon, then he would have spoken of the property as having come to him
through Ruth; but he states quite clearly that he received it from
Naomi (4:5, 9). Boaz inherited the estate through Naomi, and he
raised up seed to Elimelech through Naomi. In ordinary circumstances
the place for the daughter-in-law, when her husband has died and
when her husband's brothers are also dead, is in the home of her
father. She can have no further interest in the estate of her father-in-
law. But Ruth was not an ordinary daughter-in-law, she was one with
Naomi.
When the child is born, the women of Bethlehem said to Naomi:
"Blessed be Yahweh who hath not left thee this day without a kins-
man" (4:14). They also say that this son of Ruth and Boaz is the re-
storer of life to Naomi and the one who shall nourish her gray hairs.
He is spoken of as the go'el of Naomi, not of Ruth. Finally, Naomi
took the child and laid it on her bosom and became its nurse. This
surely points to the motherhood of Naomi in regard to the child. Then
the women, her neighbors, gave it a name, saying, "There is a son
born to Naomi." Mahlon and Chilyon have become ben-Naomi, just
as ben-Oni, the son of Rachel, became ben-Yamin. It should be noted
in 4:17 that two names are given the child. The text reads: n:R'p•
% : :; T ?
-=; w:VX1 1.
"1x
is••: ?j . "N is equiva-
lent toI*-/:
our quotation marks; hence we have "and they called his
name 'a son is born to Naomi.' " "Obed" is meaningless here and has
no connection with the story. Such a double naming is unusual, so
we must conclude that the second phrase is another addition inserted
to connect the story with David. The former is the obvious name
villagers would give the child; the latter could be given only by the
child's parents. This verse was translated by one scholar:18 "And the
women in the neighborhood spread the report of him, 'a son has been
born to Naomi,' so they called his name Obed." According to this
18 The Bible: American Translation (1928).
THE BOOK OF RUTH 155
Yahweh;and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there
shall be hope for thy latter end saith Yahweh; and thy childrenshall come
again to their own border.
The Book of Ruth is filled with motifs from the fertility cult myths.
In it we find the world-cycle pictured, the passage from sorrow to joy;
and in it we find the birth of a child as the signal of a happier age.
When these characteristics are met with in the prophets, we find that
they deal with a vision of the new age that is about to come. There is
no sufficient reason why we should not put the same interpretation on
these cultic motifs in the Book of Ruth. The prophets had prophesied
a destruction of Israel and a return. The author of our book had ac-
cepted their teaching. Israel had been destroyed. A salvation had been
wrought; the exiles had returned, but the expected era of happiness
had not yet dawned. The people needed encouragement, and so our
author wrote this midrash, using the language and motifs which the
writers of their early legends and biographies had used to set their
patriarchs and heroes apart from common man, and which their
prophets had used to proclaim their message of a new and happier age.
VICTORIA COLLEGE
TORONTO