Presbyterion 19/2 (1993) 97-102

AMBIGUITY AND THEOLOGY IN RUTH Ruth 1:21 and 2:20

G John Collins*

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to examine two verses in Ruth, with a

view to showing how the author's use and avoidance of different kinds of ambiguity are clues to the theological intent of the whole book.

Of course the word "ambiguity" is itself ambiguous: we mean one of a number of things when we use it, and clarity about which sense of the word we have in mind is vital. We may mean that on the lexical level, we do not know which of several meanings of a word is intended — usually because the context does not definitively select it out for us. This unresolved lexical ambivalence is usually a literary blemish, because the author has not made it clear what he meant. On the other hand, in a well-constructed word-play it can be useful and effective.1

On the syntactical level, an author may have left it unclear what the grammatical relationships between words are.2 Again, when this is due to carelessness, as it commonly is, it is a blemish; but I argue here that it is used for a purpose in Ruth.

Another kind of ambiguity is at the discourse level: what is the intended communicative function of this text?^ Also on this level (and

"jack Collins holds a Ph.D. from the University of Liverpool and is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Covenant Theological Seminary.

*For example, the key to the theological intent of the Book of Jonah is the word-play with rifa, "moral evil"/"calamity," as I have argued in "From literary analysis to theological exposition: The Book of Jonah," forthcoming (originally read to the Seminar on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, hosted by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas Texas, May 31 - June 11,1993).

2For example, in the sentence "time flies like an arrow," is "time" a noun or an imperative (which affects whether "flies' is a verb or a noun); and if "time" is an imperative, what does it mean to time flies like an arrow? Like an arrow times flies?

31 am of course assuming, with text linguistics, that texts have a communicative function. See E. Talstra, 'Text grammar and Hebrew Bible, I: Elements of a theory," Bibliotheca orientalis 35 (1978): 169-174; M. L. Pratt, Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse (Bloomington: Indiana University

98 PRESBYTERION: COVENANT SEMINARY REVIEW 19/2 (1993)

especially when we speak of narrative) is the matter of the author's evaluation of the characters in his story: does he approve or disapprove, or is he not so sure (and consequently leaving us not so sure)? Such ambiguity can result from carelessness, or from the author's own uncertainties about the moral qualities of historical figures, or an author's ideological interest in making readers experience what he perceives to be a morally ambiguous universe.4

Whereas there may be other ways of classifying ambiguity in a literary text,5 this hierarchy will be sufficient for the present. In particular, the avoidance of lexical ambiguity in Ruth 1:21 and the judicious use of syntactical ambiguity in 2:20 combine with other features of the narrative to reduce the likelihood of discourse-level ambiguity (i.e. to enable us to grasp and respond to the theological message of this book).

RUTH 1:21

In Ruth 1:20-21 Naomi complains to the women of Bethlehem about her troubles. She makes a play on her name, which is related to the adjective näctm "pleasant," and explains what she takes to be the reason for her hard circumstances in v. 21:

wayhwh €ânâbl and the Lord cânâ in wëSadday hêrcf li and the Almighty has made it bad for me

The Greek version of Ruth renders canâ bi by έταπείνωσέν µε, "he humbled me"; that is to say, the translator interpreted cânâ as coming from cânâ III "to be humble, afflicted".6 In the Pi'el this verb means "to

Press, 1977). It should further be noted that a text may have more than one intended communicative function — but I would prefer not to call that "ambiguity." Also, from the textlinguistic point of view, I am viewing ambiguity as a property of a text that results from the activity (conscious or not) of the author. Thus we are not here dealing with difficulties in interpretation that result from our insufficient acquaintance with the world shared between the author and his first audience: this kind of interpretive uncertainty resides, not in the text as such, but in us the receivers.

^Whether one thinks that this last possibility, the ideological ambiguity, is likely or even possible in a collection of books such as the Bible is, is outside the scope of this paper. I myself do not think such ideological ambiguity is logically compatible with the theistic world view of the Bible's authors.

^The classic work is William Empson, Seven types of ambiguity (New York: Meridian, 1955), cited and briefly discussed in M. Silva, Biblical words and their meanings (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 149. See further, for example, J. Lyons, Language, meaning, and context (London: Fontana, 1981), 43-47, 201-206; and GM. Turner, Stylistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), 99-102. In any case it should be clear that to say that there is ambiguity in a text is not always a negative estimation.

"I am using the homonym numbering of Brown-Driver-Briggs.

AMBIGUITY AND THEOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF RUTH 99

humble, afflict," and thus, so the argument goes, this is evidence for an original Unna iñ meaning "he humbled/afflicted me". This repointing and interpretation is reflected in such standard translations as NIV and NRSV.7

This interpretation is impossible, however, in view of the way that Biblical Hebrew distinguished homonyms. The verb can only be cânâ I "to answer," which in its simple (Qal) theme can have the syntax cânâ b£ <person> with the meaning "to testify about8 a person". Thus Naomi is saying, "the Lord has testified against me," i.e. she is interpreting her hard circumstances as God's testimony against her sins, and she is apparently bitter because she does not know what sins have provoked him.9

The syntax leaves no lexical ambiguity,10 and the sentence points to a key item in the theological message of the Book of Ruth: Naomi (perhaps somewhat like Job's friends) thinks that hard circumstances mean she has some secret unrepented sin; instead, as she finds out, these circumstances are part of God's mysterious and wise providence by which he oversees events. So she speaks too soon; there is more to come. In fact, her troubles become the means by which she experiences God's bounty, since the troubles are what lead Ruth to stay with her and to glean in Boaz's field. In the outcome, these circumstances are the occasion of Ruth becoming joined to God's covenant people (2:12), and of Ruth becoming an ancestress of King David (4:17). Astonishingly, it is Naomi who receives the great blessing in 4:14-17 (she has Ruth and the son!).

The author wants us to see ourselves here: we cannot see the outcome of our situations, nor can we see God's guiding hand on them — but we are to "walk by faith and not by sight," to use a New Testament phrase.

RUTH 2:20 In 2:20 Naomi responds to the news that it was the field of Boaz in

which Ruth had worked, and that Ruth had received such kind

^This is the interpretation of the Latin and Syriac versions, and finds support in the commentary of Leon Morris.

*hrhe context determines whether "about" means "in favor of or "against" (the latter is the more common).

1̂ have treated this verse in more detail from the perspective of homonym discrimination in C. J. Collins, Homonymous verbs in Biblical Hebrew: An investigation of the role of comparative philology (University of Liverpool Ph.D. thesis, 1989), 296 n. 3 and 303 n. 4. The commentaries of Cooke, Joüon, De Waard and Nida, Campbell, Hubbard, and Meltsar support this understanding.

l̂ Thus, strictly speaking, it was not the author but the language system that made the choice that leaves no ambiguity.

100 PRESBYTERION: COVENANT SEMINARY REVIEW 19/2 (1993)

treatment at his instructions. She pronounces a blessing,

bärukhu? layhwh *ä$erlö> câzabhasdô >et hafyayyim wPet hammêfim.

"Blessed be he to the Lord who has not forsaken his kindness with the living and with the dead," or

"Blessed be he to the Lord whose kindness has not forsaken the living and the dead".

The syntactical difficulties of this blessing have been pointed out in detail:11 is hasdd "his kindness" the subject or object of cäzab (i.e. is it "his kindness has not forsaken" or "he has not forsaken his kindness")?12 (The answer to this determines whether >et in >et hahayytm is the direct object marker or the preposition "with".) And who is the referent of the relative particle >ä$er and the pronominal suffix on hasdô — is it the Lord's kindness or is it Boaz's? Rebera has made an outstanding case for Boaz as the referent, and this has persuaded Hubbard. However, Joüon and Keil give excellent reasons for finding Yahweh as the referent. As Thompson summarises it, "grammatically, both are possible, and exegetically each has its champions, but perhaps we have to say that we cannot easily make a decision and that we must live with the ambiguity."

I am suggesting that the syntactic ambiguity is intentional.13 To be precise, I have no doubt that Naomi herself meant either the Lord or Boaz as the referent of 3aSer, but in the haste of ordinary conversation (as opposed to the careful language of literary craft), she framed the clause ambiguously. The narrator found this useful in conveying his message.14 We are to ask, in the words of Rebera, "Yahweh or Boaz?" But the right answer is "yes," since Boaz in the book of Ruth embodies aspects of the character of God, most importantly his hesed. Note how in 2:12 Boaz wishes a blessing upon Ruth, who has taken refuge under

1 1 See the thorough study of Basil Rebera, "Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2:20 reconsidered," The Bible Translator 36 (1985): 317-327; most recently Michael E. W. Thompson, "New life amid the alien corn: The Book of Ruth," Evangelical Quarterly 65 (1993): 197-210, at 205.

^As Joüon and Meltsar point out, the similar expression in Gen 24:27 makes it likely that hasdd is the object of the verb.

^Meltsar, 20 n. 38, mentions this as a possibility but does not explore the implications.

14It should be clear that I see no difficulty in believing that the narrator has recorded actual events; he does, after all, locate the book in a historical period (1:1), and purports to explain how David's genealogy came about (4:17-22). Of course this does not preclude the artful selection and presentation of these events with a lesson in mind; it is even possible that Naomi's original utterance was unambiguous in its context, but that the narrator left out some of the accompanying context.

AMBIGUITY AND THEOLOGY IN THE BOOK OF RUTH 101

the Lord's "wings" (NIV; the Hebrew is kenäpäyw); while in 3:9 Ruth asks Boaz to spread "the corner of your garment" (NIV; Hebrew kênâpéka). The "kindness" of Boaz (i.e. his hesed) is clearly visible in 2:8-9, 14-16, where Boaz far exceeds the requirements of mere legality in his generous treatment of Ruth (who reminded him in 2:10 that she was a mere foreigner,15 with no claim on his kindness).

Ruth, in experiencing the welcoming kindness of Boaz extended to a hapless and helpless foreigner who has no legal claim on his benevolence, is experiencing something of what Israel as a whole, and every true believer in Yahweh individually, receives from the Lord: his hesed, i.e. undeserved mercy (e.g. Deut 5:15; 7:7-9; 26:5-9; Josh 24:2-13; etc.).16

Thus the reader, in confronting the irresolvable syntactic ambiguity of Ruth 2:20, comes to see that the answer does not matter in view of the role Boaz plays in the story.

CONCLUSION I take the main theme of the Book of Ruth to be the way in which

Yahweh's people experience his sovereignty, wisdom, and love. These great realities come to us disguised in hard circumstances whose outcome we simply cannot foretell (and who ever suggested that such foretelling has anything to do with our duty? Deut 29:28 [ET v. 29]). They are mediated through our own and others' moral and prudent actions (e.g. Ruth's loyalty; Naomi's scheme; Boaz's legal tactics). But God does not withhold his love from his people, even when they do not respond properly to their trials; nor are bleak situations (e.g. the time of the judges, 1:1; poverty; bereavement) clear marks of his disfavor or hindrances to his plan.

The narrator has cleverly told his tale so that linguistic questions about ambiguity lead us to insight into his message.17

1^Note how throughout the book attention is drawn to her foreign origin: she is a "Moabitess," 1:4, 22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10 (surely this goes well beyond the bounds of a simple descriptive epithet — it is for emphasis), and she is a "foreigner," 2:10-12.

^See the helpful article on this Hebrew word by R. Laird Harris in The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody), 1:305-307. He reviews recent discussions on the meaning of this important word and shows that it refers, not to the fulfilling of covenant obligations as such, but to love freely given without regard to merit (even in defiance of the demerit of the loved), that leads God to bring the loved into a covenantal relationship, and to preserve that relationship even when the love is not returned.

"On the matter of ambiguity, I have not dealt with the terms used in chapter 3 which, if wrongly interpreted, might lead a reader to suppose that Ruth is up to something immoral. This was the topic of a paper by Harry Harm, "Double entendre in Ruth," read to the Seminar on Discourse Linguistics and Biblical

102 PRESBYTERION: COVENANT SEMINARY REVIEW 19/2 (1993)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, F., Driver, S. R., Briggs, C. A. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906.

Campbell, Edward F., Jr. Ruth. Anchor Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

Collins, Clifford J. Homonymous verbs in Biblical Hebrew: An investigation of the role of comparative philology. University of Liverpool Ph.D. thesis, 1989.

Cooke, G. A. Judges and Ruth. Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913.

De Waard, Jan and Nida, Eugene. A Translator's Handbook on the Book of Ruth. London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Harris, R. Laird, "hsd." In R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, Jr., Bruce Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1:305-307. Chicago: Moody, 1981.

Hubbard, Robert L., Jr. The Book of Ruth. New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Joüon, Paul. Ruth: Commentaire philologique et exégétique. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986.

Keil, C. F. W. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980 (original ET 1887).

Meltsar, P. "Rut." In HamëS Mëgillôt. Da'at Miqra. P. Meltsar, A. Hakham, M. Zar-Kavod, Y. Moskovitz. Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1973.

Morris, Leon. "Ruth." In Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1968.

Rebera, Basil. "Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2:20 reconsidered." The Bible Translator 36 (1985): 317-327.

Thompson, Michael E. W. "New life amid the alien corn: The Book of Ruth," Evangelical Quarterly 65 (1993): 197-210.

Hebrew (hosted by the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Dallas, Texas), May 31 -June 11, 1993 (the paper is forthcoming in The journal of textlinguistics and translation). Harms argues that the potential double entendres heighten suspense about the outcome of Naomi's strategem. Whereas this of course makes for good narrator's art, its main contribution to our receiving the theological message is in the way it shows us the upright and trustworthy characters of Ruth and Boaz.