You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17

7/31/2019 You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17

1/18

"Your People Shall Be My People":

Family and Covenant in Ruth 1 :1 6-1 7

MARK S. SMITH

New York UniversityNew York, NY 10012

RUTH 1:16-17 BELONGS to one ofthe most inspiring expressions of interper

sonal solidarity found in the Bible. In view of the "moving rhetoric"1 of these

verses, Wilhelm Rudolph considers them the high point ofthe first chapter.2 In the

emotional dialogue between Naomi and Ruth, with each woman seemingly as

determined as the other, it is Ruth's words in the final round, in vv. 16-17, that

dramatically recast the terms of their relationship in a form often regarded as

poetic.3

At the heart of these verses are lines that may be read as three bicola:4

This essay is dedicated to my in-laws, Sonia and Ted Bloch, inspirations to me in manyways.

I wish to thank Daniel Fleming and William Holladayfor offering comments on an earlier draft of

this essay. I am also grateful to Linda Day for herhelp.1 So Adele Berlin, "Ruth," m Harper s Bible Commentary (ed. James L. Mays; San Francisco:

Harper& Row, 1988)263.2

Wilhelm Rudolph, DasBuchRuth, DasHoheLied, Die Klagelieder ( 17/1-3; Gtersloh:Mohn, 1962) 42.

3 For example, the commentaries of Rudolph (Das Buch Ruth, 40) and Edward Campbell(Ruth- A new translation with introduction and commentary [AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975]

61-62, 74) lay out w. 16-17 in poetic lines. For a characterization of these verses as a "very lyricalsection," see Jack M. Sasson, Ruth A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and aFormalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd ed ; Biblical Seminar 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic


2/18

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 243

For to where5 you go, I will go; f?K ^ n TtfiX ^And in where you lodge, I will lodge; TX TO itf Km

Your people shall be my people, "* "|37And your god will be my god.6

In where you die, I will die, max 'man iff X3And there I will be buried. inpx Dtfl

Modern readers readily and rightly grasp the affective dimension of these words,

which is evident from the context. At the same time, for the book's ancient audi

ence Ruth's words contain a conceptual sensibility that informs their affective

power. After a brief survey ofcurrent proposals in the following section, I ventureto uncoverthe ancient sensibility ofRuth 1:16-17 through an examination of bib

lical and extrabiblical parallels.

I. Current Proposals

Ifthe relationship ofNaomi and Ruth has been severed socially by the death

ofthe man who drew these two women together in the first place, then how would

the new relationship as expressed by Ruth's words be understood by an ancientaudience? There have been essentially three approaches to this question.

First, much of Jewish tradition has viewed Ruth's words as an expression of

conversion.7

Scholars who address this view largely reject it. Rudolph, Edward

5Most render the forms of TtfiO/TtfX as relatives ("wherever"); see BDB 82, #4b. The trans

lation here, presupposing "in the place (where)," reflects an effort to capture what may be regarded

as either an ellipsis for "the place where" (as in the expression # D1pQ3 in the parallel in 2 Sam

15:21 discussed below) orthe older locative sense ofthe word 1WN. In eithercase, the locative sense

seems applicable in this instance as indicated by DEH in the final line. The older locative sense of

the relatives is attested in the development ofthe noun **atr, "place" (Ugaritic atr\ AramaicDatra)

into a relative, as attested in KTU2.39.33b-35:3adm

2atr Htbqt w stn ly, "As for the person, wher

ever he is, find (him) and send him/it (word of him, in a letter) to me." For the general understand

ing, see Dennis Pardee, "A Further Note on PRU V, No. 60," UF 13 (1982) 151-56, here 152,

especially his comment: "If these readings are correct, it becomes clearthat *atris not functioning

as a relative pronoun, though the syntactic function ofthe word here is the very one that led to its

becoming a relative pronoun (accusative ofa noun meaning 'place' = 'in whateverplace' 'wher

ever' 'which')" (p. 156). For comparisons ofthis passage with EA [El-Amarna tablets] 143:

7 and its parallel use of Akkadian asar, see Anson Ramey, "Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,"UF 3 (1971) 151-72, here 162; and JosefTropper. Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Mnster:Ugarit Verlag 2000) 798 For further discussions see UT 19 422; Tropper Ugaritische Grammatik


3/18

244 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007

Campbell, and Adele Berlin, for example, mention the idea of conversion,8 which

they resist in view of the relatively minor role that religious observance and belief

play in the text. Berlin's comments nicely capture the situation at this point in thebook:

In what amounts to a change of identity, from Moabite to Israelite (for there was as yetno formal procedure or even the theoretical possibility for religious conversion), Ruthadopts the people and God of Naomi. Religion was bound up with ethnicity in biblical times; each people had its land and its gods (cf. Mie. 4:5), so that to change religion meant to change nationality.

9

As reflected in this quotation, modern commentators generally reject that thenotion of conversion in its traditional form is represented here. As a modification

ofthe traditional idea of conversion, Gillis Gerleman sees a sort of "judaization"

of Ruth expressed in her words.10 As noted below, this formulation arguably

denotes a shift at a higher level of sociopolitical complexity than the book itself

expresses about Ruth's linkage to Naomi. Other commentators who also see con

version as the central issue in Ruth, however, would see the book as a polemic

against the need for foreign women to convert. As Moshe Weinfeld characterizes

this older view, the book was viewed as a "protest against the Ezra-Nehemiah atti

tude toward foreign women (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13:23-29)," but he notes that this

view "has no basis at all" in the text.11 Recently, the idea of Ruth as a polemic

against the need to convert has been advanced in a modified form by Yairah Amit.

She suggests that the references to Ruth as a Moabite evoke an "implicit polemic"12

against the "Ezra-Nehemiah attitude toward foreign women." By definition, detec

tion of "implicit" phenomena is difficult to confirm or disprove. Although one may

remain open to this approach, it only partially addresses the terms of Ruth's speech

in 1:16-17; indeed, Amit barely mentions these verses. This issue may lie in the

background of the book, but it is nevertheless insufficient for understanding the

terms of Ruth 1:16-17. In sum, neither approach to Rutheither pro-conversion

or anti-conversionhas met with general acceptance. Conversion (or "judaiza-

further discussion and textual citations of Ruth as a convert, see Aaron Rothkoff. '"Ruth. Book of:In the Aggadah,'* EncJud 14. 522-23. See also Moshe David Hem "Ruth Rabbani EncJud 14. 524.

8Rudolph. Das Buch Ruth, 43; Campbell Ruth, 80; Berlin. "Ruth/5 263.

9Berlin, "Ruth." 263.

10

Gillis Gerleman, Rut Das Hohelied (BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,1965) 20; and discussed favorably by Nielsen, Ruth. 50.

11Moshe Weinfeld '"Ruth Book of " EncJud 14 522 For examples of this view and exten


4/18


tion") as such does not appear to constitute the basic horizons of the terms in Ruth's

speech.

Second, some scholars concentrate on the significance of various elementsof 1:16-17 as expressions of cementing bonds. In 1:15-19a, what he nicely calls"the pledge," Jack Sasson comments on the speech-act of "your god will be my

own" (as he translates the line): "This usage suggests not only the act of worship

ing, but also alludes to all the deeds and acts which cement a bond between indi

viduals and their deities."13

Marjo C. A. Korpel examines v. 17a and specifically

its reference to death, but otherwise she offers little discussion of the relationship

between the two women.14

Athalya Brenner sees a contractual arrangement

between the two women by which Ruth pledges labor to Naomi as a "female foreign worker" in exchange for benefits issuing from her new social situation in

Bethlehem.13

On the whole, these reflections capture different aspects of Ruth's

WOrds, but they do not address the larger conceptual framework informing her

speech.

A third approach characterizes the bonds involved in terms of covenantal lan

guage. Attentive to the use oihesed in Ruth 1:8-9; 2:20; and 3:10, Campbell comments on 1:6-22: "The striking thing about the theology of the Ruth book, however,

is that it brings the lofty concept of covenant into vital contact with day-to-daylife, not at the royal court or in the temple, but right here in the narrow compass

of village life."16

Alice L. Laffey characterizes Ruth's words as an expression of

"covenant fidelity."17

Andr Lacocque has also drawn attention to the use oihesed

in 2:20 in his characterization of Ruth's change in status in 1:16-17 as one of "voluntary displacement."

18He also points to 2 Sam 15:21 as a parallel to 1:16: "wher-

13Sasson, Ruth, 29.

14Marjo C. A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pencope 2; Assen: Van Gorcum,

2001) 80: "Like Naomi, she defies God, challenging him to end her life prematurely, as he ended

the lives of Ehmelech, Mahlon and Chihon."l- Athalya Brenner, "Ruth as a Foreign Worker and the Politics of Exogamy," in Ruth and

Esther A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) (ed. Athalya Brenner; Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 159-62. For anachronism in Brenner's reading, see Roland Boer,

"Culture, Ethics and Identity in Reading Ruth: A Response to Donaldson, Dube, McKinlay and

Brenner," in Ruth and Esther A Feminist Companion, 163-70, here 164. For further discussion of

Brenner's proposal, see Victor H Matthews, Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary:

Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 222. For possible scenarios that mayhave induced Ruth's choice, see Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Ruth (Interpretation; Louisville: John

Knox 1999) 33-34


5/18


evermy lord the king is, whether for death or for life, there your servant shall

be."19 The loyaltyposed here by Ittai to David in vassalage terms ("your servant")

does echo Ruth's expression. As suggested below, this parallel reflects the type ofterms for relationships that are expressed in treaties and covenants. Other terms

associated with covenant in the larger context would tend to support this approach.

In Ruth 2:11, when Boaz recounts what Ruth has done, he acknowledges "how

you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth and you came to a

people that you had not known ever before" (71 TWT'V ItfK D5T7X ^\). The first part ofthe last, independent clause echoes Ruth's own pledge in

1:16, while the following, dependent clause adds the covenant/treaty notion of

"knowledge." The people and/or god whom one does (or does not) know is a markof covenantal relations. In treaty terms, the verb means to recognize politically

(cf. Akkadian idu),20 while at the level ofthe family, the idiom of knowledge may

express "covenantal" recognition across family lines.21 Within the immediate com

pass of w . 16-17, however, neither Campbell norLaffey points to evidence that

would confirm their characterizations of Ruth's words as covenantal. In contrast,

Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in her characterization of the words of Ruth's speech,

observes that they "resonate with the Bible's cadence of covenant and contract."22

In support of herview, she cites 1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7, as well as 2 Chr 18:3.

23

The parallels that Frymer-Kensky cites have received little notice in the schol

arly literature. Moreover, Frymer-Kensky does not fullyworkout the significance

of their impact for the meaning of Ruth's speech, both in its immediate context

and in the context of the book as a whole. In addition, there are further extra-

biblical parallels of treaty language worth comparingand contrastingwith Ruth

1:16-17. These parallels in the biblical corpus and beyond help to indicate the

"covenantal" language in 1:16-17 and how it might have been understood. For

1 9Andr Lacocque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subvershe Figures in Israels Tra

dition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990) 111-12; idem. Ruth, 52.20

See F. C. Fensham, "The Treaty between the Israelites and Tynans," in Congress Volume

Rome 1968(ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 71-87. here 73-76: Herbert Hufmon.

'The Treaty Background of Hebrew yda^ BASOR 181 (1966) 31-37: Herbert Hufmon and Simon

B. Parker, "A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew yda


6/18


these reasons, it appears appropriate to explicate further Frymer-Kensky's observation. The following discussion is divided into three parts. In the next section, I

identify biblical and extrabiblical treaty parallels to Ruth 1:16-17 in terms ofstructure, content, and worldview. In the subsequent section, I probe the model of family on which these covenantal expressions are based. Here I point out that it is notcovenant that is the lofty concept brought down to routine village life in the bookof Ruth, as Campbell understands the situation; instead, family relations are beingexpressed by Ruth, and it is the model offamily extended across family lines thatis being expressed in treaty and covenant language. Once the conceptual relationship between family language and covenant has been clarified, in the final part of

the essay I engage the analysis ofthe biblical parallels to Ruth 1:16-17 and theirimplications for understanding the relationship between Naomi and Ruth. Thisconclusion ofthe study confirms what I think many modern readers intuitivelygrasp: with her words Ruth establishes a family relationship with Naomi that transcends the death of the male who had connected them, and in fact this relationshiprepresents a family tie closer than that expressed by the formal status of former inlaws.

24The parallels in the next section help to locate and clarify this understand

ing in its ancient context.

II. Biblical and Extrabiblical Parallels to Ruth 1:16

Two biblical passages containing wording similar to Ruth 1:16 are 1 Kgs 22:4and 2 Kgs 3:7. Both embedded in contexts of international relations (1 Kgs 22:1-4;2 Kgs 3:4-7), the texts express cooperation between two parties:

Three years passed without war between Aram and Israel.And in the third year, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, came down to the king of Israel.2-

And the king of Israel said to his servants:"Are you aware that Ramot-gilead is ours, yet we do nothing about taking itfrom the power of the king of Aram?"

And he said to Jehoshaphat:"Will you go with me (TIN "pnn) to war at Ramot-gilead?"

And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel:["I will go up (rfWN) with you;]26

24

For example, Rebecca Alpert ("Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the BookofRuth," in Reading Ruth Contemporary Women Reclaim a SacredStory [ed. Judith A. Kates and GTwersky Reimer; New York: Ballantine 1994] 91-96 here 94) comments "Ruth and Naomi are


7/18


Like me, like you ("TIED "lE!)).27

Like my people, like yourpeople ("|ESD "S73),

Like my horses, like your horses (T010D "OIOD)." (1 Kgs 22:1-4)

Now Mesha, king of Moab, was a sheep-breeder,28 and he would pay29 to the king ofIsrael 100,000 lambs and 100.000 rams in wool.And as soon as Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. Andthat very day King Jehoram left Samaria and mustered all Israel. And he proceeded30

to send (a message) to Jehoshaphat, king of Judah:"The king of Moab has rebelled against me;Will you go with me (7) to Moab for war(against him)?"

And he [Jehoshaphat] said:"I will go up (727) [with you]:Like me, like you (T.D MIED).Like my people, like your people ("|E37D *E27D),Like my horses, like your horses (T010D "OIOD)."

And he asked:"Which road shall we go up (7273)?"'

And he [Jehoram] said:"The road ofthe wilderness ofEdom." (2 Kgs 3:4-7)

Both passages present the kings ofIsrael and Judah preparing to join in war

fare against a third monarch, with whom the king ofIsrael has a dispute. The first

case involves a territorial dispute with Aram, the second a rebellion bythe king of

Moab. In both cases, the king ofIsrael calls on King Jehoshaphat ofJudah for aid,

and in both situations Jehoshaphat agrees to help. Both passages presuppose treaty

relations between the kings ofJudah and Israel, so that one can call on the other

in mutual assistance against a third party. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor

note the treatyrelations involved here, and theycite biblical parallels (1 Kgs 22:49-50; 2 Kgs 8:18; and 2 Chr 18:3). as well as a statement by King Niqmaddu to his

Hittite overlord, Shuppiluliuma: "With the enemies ofmylord. I am enemy; with

his ally, I am ally" (PRUIV, RS 17.340.13).31 Jerome T. Walsh comments on the

2

" See Judg 8:18 for this syntax: nniD ".2 8 So the NJPS translation. Fordiscussion ofMesha as IpZ. see Richard C. Steiner. Stockmen

from Tekoa. Sycomores from Sheba (CBQMS 36: Washington. DC: Catholic Biblical Association of

America, 2003) 70-87, esp. 77. 85.2 9 For the construction ofC-stem of -7 2T\see BDB 999a. =2f. citing "to gi\e in payment."in 1 Sam 6:8 17: and "to pay as tribute " in 2 Kgs 3:4: 2 Chr 27:5: cf 2 Kgs 17:3 and Ps 72:10 (with


8/18


role of Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:1-4: "Jehoshaphat's deference suggests Judah's sta

tus as lesserpartner, perhaps even vassal, of Israel."32 Noting the parallel in 1 Kgs

22:1-4, ChristopherT. Begg comments in a similar vein about Jehoshaphat in 2 Kgs

3:7-8: "This exchange suggests that Judah was subordinate to Israel at this time."33

Cogan, however, would take issue with this understanding of Judah's subordinate

status within the treaty relations as expressed in 1 Kgs 22:4.34

Whatever the details

ofthe actual situation, it is clear to these interpreters that the text uses treaty lan

guage, specifically equivalence or identification of resources.

To anticipate the final section of this essay, it is the appearance of UV in this

usage here that especially resonates with Ruth 1:16. At the same time, it is impor

tant to acknowledge the differences in context. In the passages from Kings, this !?

is military in character, and so Cogan and Tadmor correctly understand the word

as "forces."35

Their translation also makes an effort to capture the force ofthe -

particle: "my forces are as your forces; my horses are as your horses." They cite

BDB, in its view that the repeated . . . - . . . - functions "to signify their com

pleteness of the correspondency between two objects."36

Bruce K. Waltke and

M. O'Connor discuss instances of what they call this "identity construction," in

which the two parties named share some predication; as they say, "like father, like

son."37 Neither BDB norWaltke and O'Connor cite the two Kings passages, buttheir remarks may permit an inference about the construction in these two

instances: the military forces and horses ofthe two monarchs will fight in unison

as if (... -) they are one and the same single resource for this casus belli. Below

I will explore the significance of these passages for interpreting Ruth 1:16-17, but

it is necessary beforehand to look at the wider context of treaty and covenant at

both the royal and family/clan levels.

As noted above, Cogan compares the passages from Kings with Ras Shamra

(RS) 17.340.13. He is surely correct in noting the treaty relations involved in thetexts from Kings and RS 17.340.13; however, the types of treaty discourse differ.

Ras Shamra 17.340.13 identifies persons ("with his ally, I am ally"). In contrast,

the passages from Kings equate the resources of the two kings; in other words,

"what's mine is yours and vice versa." The treaty discourse in the texts from Kings

falls under the larger rubric of two parties understanding themselves as a single

political entity, in what an important but often overlooked study by Paul Kallu-

3 2Jerome T. Walsh, "1 Kings," NJBC, 1. 174.


9/18


veettil on the language of treaties presents under the heading: "We are all one."38

He cites two second-millennium Akkadian treaty texts under this rubric. The survey that follows begins with the text most proximate to our passages from Kings,

with its explicit expression of shared resources as a representation of "treaty one

ness." The list moves to Kalluveettil's second text, followed by three others that

identify partners "as one" in various ways. To complement the treaty texts, a cou

ple of letters from the Amarna correspondence that reflect the same conceptual

assumptions are added.

1. RS 18.54 A, lines 17'-20' (PRUIV,pp. 228-29):

As for me I have said: Everything ofmy house is yours and everything of your houseis mine (gab-bi mar-sl-ti sa b-t-ya a-na ku-n-su-nu mar-s[T-ta] sa b-t-ku-nt-y[a\).

This text between unnamed parties cites an earlier text that expresses treaty rela

tions between them. As the writer calls his addressee, the king of Ugarit, "my

brother" (line 7), it is apparent that parity relations are involved. According to

Kalluveettil: "The writer... is committed to behave as if they belong to the same

family, his possessions really belong to his ally and those of his partner to him."39

Here the parties are only implicitly one, embedded in the notion that their resources

are regarded explicitly as a single entity.

2. Mursilis II of Hatti to Talmisharruma of Aleppo in text 6, rev. lines 9-10 (E.

Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsvertrge in

akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazki [Boghazki Studien 8-

9; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923] 86-87):

May all of us together and our house be one (gab-bi-ni bt-ni lu- istn).40

Kalluveettil lists this case under the rubric "we are all one." Insofar as this case

does not identify resources as shared, but "our house" as one, this passage falls

more generally in the category of identification of parties as one. It is instructive

to see that despite what might sound like an expression of parity, this is an expres

sion by an overlord, the Hittite king, to his vassal, Talmi-Sharruma of Aleppo. This

usage also appears in international correspondence that presupposes parity-treaty

relations. In El-Amarna tablet (EA) 19, the king of Mitanni, Tushratta, writes toNimmureya (a.k.a. Amenophis III) to request gold. In order to add persuasive force

t hi t T h tt i d A hi "Thi t i b th '


10/18


try, and this house is my brother's house" (line 70).41 The rhetoric in this case

assumes a large shared household of these two "brothers," itself a common termin parity-treaty relations.

3. RS 20.162, lines 17-19 (Ugaritica F [Mission de Ras Shamra XVI; Paris:

Imprimerie nationale, 1939] 115):

"Amurru and Ugarit are one" (mat Ma-mur-ri matMu-ga-ri-te istnen-ma sunn).

In this letter to the king of Ugarit, his servant Parsu discusses communications

with Amurru about a shared enemy. The identification of two lands as one pertains

to their overall relationship, which would include an expectation of cooperation,

such as the use of their resources against a hostile force. In similar terms, this one

involving a discussion of exchange of valuables, Tushratta reminds Amenophis

(EA 24:68-69): "we, between us, are one, the Hurrian land and the land of

Egypt."42

4. RS 17.382 + 380, lines 3-4 (PRUIV, p. 80):

"For a long time, the king of Ugarit and the king of Siyannu were one" {ul-tu la-be-er-ti srmatal-ga-ri-it srmatals-ia-an-ni istn en-nu-tu^ su-nu).

This text, an edict of Mursilis governing his relations with king of Niqmepa of

Ugarit, opens with these lines. In wording quite similar to the formulation in the

preceding example, this text uses the terminology of oneness to open a description

of the relationship between Ugarit and Siyannu.43

5. 1 Maccabees 12:19-23:

This is a copy of the letter that was sent to Onias:"Arius, king of the Spartans, sends greetings to Onias the high priest. A document hasbeen found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descendedfrom Abraham. Now that we have learned this, kindly write to us about your welfare.We, on our part, are informing you that your cattle and your possessions are ours,

41 W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1992) 45. Note also EA 16:32-34 (Moran, Amarna Letters, 39): "If your purpose is graciously one

of friendship, send me much gold. And this is your house. Write me so what you need may befetched."

42 Moran Amarna Letters 65


11/18


and ours are yours ( ,

). We have, therefore, given orders that you should be told ofthis." (NAB)

With this example, we leave the world of second-millennium Syria for the Hel

lenistic period. If the document is essentially authentic, as Jonathan A. Goldstein

maintains,44 it would date to the earlythird centuryB.C.E. during the time ofOnias I

(high priest from ca. 323-300 or 290 B.C.E.) and Arius I (Spartan king from ca.

309-265 B.C.E.).4 5

Here the treaty language of brotherhood entails the parties'

resources, which Goldstein compares with the language of shared resources in 1

Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7 discussed above.

All in all, these examples indicate the considerable extent of the treaty/covenant idiom ofshared identity and resources.

46

III. Covenant and Family

The texts presented in the preceding section largely derive from the realm of

international relations. It is evident that in terms ofcontext, these stand at a con

siderable distance from the situation ofRuth. What fundamentally underlies these

differences is a matterofinternational relations versus relations on the family level.What is the conceptual relationship between these two spheres? In his characteri

zation cited above, Campbell sees covenant as a loftyconcept brought into contact

with village life. Based on some recent studies, this view of matters may be

inverted: covenant is an extension of family relations across family lines.

Campbell's view was understandable in view of the pace and direction of

scholarship on ancient NearEastern treaties. Beginning in the late 1950s, studies

identified treaty and covenant in international contexts across a wide spectrum of

political and economic documents dating to the second and first millennia. Perhaps

4 4 Jonathan A. Goldstein, IMaccabees: A new translation with introduction and commentary

(AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 447-60, esp. 450-52. See also W. J. Heard, Jr., "Sparta/\4#A

6. 176-77. See furtherStephanie von Dobbeler. Die Bcher 1/2 Makkaber (Neuer Stuttgarter KommentarAltes Testament 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997) 121-22.

43 For a critical discussion of the figures involved and their dates, see further Neil J. McEleney,"1-2 Maccabees," NJBC, 1.437.

46 Goldstein, / Maccabees, 451. In his portrait of Galba, the Roman historian Suetonius

(Twelve Caesars 7.20) provides in his account of the emperor's death (which came seven monthsafter his accession in 68-69) another example of the language of "oneness" of identity. Himself a for


12/18


best known through the work of Dennis J. McCarthy,47 this international treaty

language was readily identified in a repertoire of expressions grouped in biblical

studies under the rubric of covenant.48 The line of research continues to command

wide attention.49 A great deal of this treaty or covenant vocabulary clearly was

family vocabulary, by which the parties to the treaty expressed their relations in

familial terms"father" and "son" in vassal treaties, "brother" in parity treaties.

In these instances, treaties established relations between two monarchs who were

unrelated in terms of family lines. The larger world of ruling monarchs could be

understood as a large family or a series of families, in which each king knew his

place, whether as overlord, equal, or vassal. Family was, to use Mary Douglas's

expression, a "natural symbol" for expressing these sets of relations.30 This con

ceptual usage was not restricted to narrow family terms but extended to other

expressions at home in the family, such as the language of love and familiarity (or

literally, "knowledge").

In this scholarly landscape, the familial setting of this language was obvious.

Scholars of covenants and treaties cited instances of individuals making covenants

to establish ties across family lines. As illustrations, we may take three well-known

examples. David makes a covenant with Abner (2 Sam 3:12, 13; cf. 3:21). Rahab

makes an alliance with Joshua's scouts via an oath by which they promise to do

hesedto her in return for her help (Josh 2:12-14).51 This example is further perti

nent to the case of Ruth and Naomi, as it also involves an oath as the mechanism

4~ Dennis J. McCarthy, S.J., Treaty and Covenant A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental

Documents and in the Old Testament (New edition completely rewritten; AnBib 21 A; Rome: Pon

tifical Biblical Institute, 1978). See also his Institution and Narrative Collected Essays (AnBib

108; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1985).48

See the list in McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 328-34; Kalluveettil, Declaration andCovenant, 219-35.

49 In addition to Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (n. 20 above), recent studies include

Michael L. Barr, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. A Study

in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty' Tradition (JHNES; Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins

University Press, 1983); Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon History and Literature in AncientIsrael (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 3-21; Gary N. Knoppers, "Ancient

Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant," JAOS 116 (1996) 670-97; Jacqueline E.

Lapsley, "Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 65 (2003) 350-69; Robert A.

Oden, "The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Ancient Israel," in Ancient Israelite Religion

Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean

McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 427-47; Theodore J. Lewis, "The Identity and Function of


13/18


for establishing the interpersonal covenant. The third case, the covenant between

Jonathan and David (1 Sam18:3;

20:8; 23:18), often comes to mind in discussionsof covenants. It seems that some language in this case echoes old treaty forms used

by kings. William L. Moran notes the expression "to love PN as oneself in both

1 Sam 18:3 and in the oath of Assyrian vassals made to Esarhaddon.52

Rather than reflecting influence from the top down, as Campbell viewed the

direction of influence, the appearance of idioms in both the David-Jonathan

covenant language and in international treaties may reflect the fact that such lan

guage was operative in various sorts of covenantal relationships, not only at the

international level. These casesand further examples could be brought to bear

indicate that covenantal procedures appear operative on various social levels. It is

for this reason that covenant could be readily applied to marriage (see Mai 2:14;

Ezek 16:8; Prov 2:17).53

Despite the recognition of such cases, it often escapes

scholarly attention that covenantal relations could take place at all levels of soci

ety and not only in the settings most conspicuous from newly discovered texts,

namely, the international relations among royal courts. Covenant is a mechanism

useful for family life, to extend relations beyond the family, or even to intensify

relations within family life (e.g., Gen 31:44-50).54

Accordingly, royal treaties are

to be seen as monarchic expressions of basic family and clan relations, and not the

other way around, as Campbell supposed.

This shift in perspective was expressed in a fresh way by Frank Moore Cross.

In an essay entitled "Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel," Cross formulated

the basic point that covenant is fictive family relations:

Often it has been asserted that the language of "brotherhood" and "fatherhood,""love," and "loyalty" is "covenant terminology." This is to turn things upside down.The language of covenant, kinship-in-law, is taken from the language of kinship,kinship-in-flesh.55

The implications of this insight had been recognized in 1982 by Kalluveettil in

Declaration and Covenant. A student of McCarthy, Kalluveettil pointed to a wide

variety of nonroyal examples of covenant language. Like Cross's essay, Kallu-

veettil's volume indicated that covenant is modeled on family and was operative

32William L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteron

omy." CBQ 25 (1963) 77-87, esp. n. 33. See further Ada Taggar-Cohen. "Political Loyalty in the Biblical Account of1 Samuel xx-xxii in the Light of Hittite Texts," VT55 (2005) 251-68, esp. 258.

33


14/18

"YO UR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 255

in both nonroyal and royal contexts in order to express relations between persons

or parties who were otherwise unrelated to one another.

56

Kalluveettil accordinglycharacterizes covenant as "a fictious extension of kinship." 57 In other words, it is

functional at several levels of society. Kalluveettil concludes: "It is wrong then to

tie it down to the political field."58 It is not family bonds that are simply like inter

national treaties or covenants, but rather covenants and treaties, whether at the

individual, group, or international level, that constitute interfamily relations across

family lines. Family is the basic model, whether at the local level or the interna

tional level, for establishing ties across family lines.

IV. Implications for Ruth 1:16-17

This discussion of covenant and family has implications for understanding

Ruth's words to Naomi and the parallels cited for them in the books of Kings. Ruth

expresses at the level of the family and clan what Jehoshaphat conveys at the level

of international royal relations. The words of Jehoshaphat represent the treaty/

covenant relationship on the royal level across family lines; Ruth's words repre

sent the covenant relationship across family lines that have been sundered by the

death of the male who had linked the lives of Ruth and Naomi. As noted earlier,

Campbell and Laffey nicely characterize Ruth's wish in terms of covenant; how

ever, Ruth's words may be characterized as a covenant between two parties unre

lated by blood. As Kalluveettil points out in another context: "It is as if the

newcomer shares in some sort the same blood." 59

With this understanding of covenant and family, we are in a better position to

account for the similarities and differences between Ruth 1:16 and the parallels in

1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7. At the heart of these responses of Jehoshaphat are terms

that notably resemble the words of Ruth:

Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:4b and 2 Kgs 3:7b:

Like me, like you; TIED 'JlDLike my people, like your people; 1Q7D "OTDLike my horses, like your horses. "pOIOD "OIOD

Ruth in Ruth 1:16b:

Your people shall be my people, "S? "pS?And your god will be my god.


15/18


To begin, it is important to note what is perhaps the most conspicuously shared

item among the terms used here to express relations. Despite significant differ

ences in grammar, both Jehoshaphat and Ruth speak of "my people" and "your

people" as terms linked in a nominal clause. Both speakers connect what is theirs

with what is their addressee's. Marking these expressions of relationship is the use

ofthe pronominal suffixes, in particular "your" and "my."60 These are found not

only in the forms of international relationships examined above, but also in rec

ognized expressions of covenant (e.g., Exod 6:7; Jer 31:33).61

This usage is a

rhetorical device that marks the inclusion of the bonded parties together. At the

heart oftheirspeeches, Jehoshaphat and Ruth understand that the nouns repeated

are what they share. In addition, there is a less direct similarity, but it is one that

in light of the preceding observations seems advisable to include for considera

tion. In expressing their devotion, both King Jehoshaphat and Ruth will go (*"pn)

with their different addressees: the kings will go together in battle, while the

women will go togetherto Bethlehem. This sort of agreement is attested at the clan

ortribal level in Judg 4:8. To Deborah's request that Barak go with her into battle,

he says: "If you will go with me, I will go; and if you will not go with me, then I

will not go." She answers in the following verse: "I will indeed go with you." In

the context ofthe passages from Kings, Jehoshaphat adds "I will go up" (*!7) inhis response to the question of going together as posed in the question put to him.

In these two passages the additional verb, *JTO, belongs to the larger setting of

battle,62 but it also serves to show the kings going together, much as Naomi and

Ruth do.

Within the larger similarity between the passages from Kings and Ruth 1:16-

17, there are some notable differences that help to sharpen the understanding ofthe

force of the words in both sets of texts. First, the parallel terms in Jehoshaphat's

speeches are military resources, while Ruth's words have family and religiousterms standing in parallelism. So, as noted in section II, DS7 in the two contexts res

onates differently: "force(s)" for Jehoshaphat, but "people" for Ruth. Second,

Jehoshaphat's words carry the double -D construction, while Ruth's do not. So for

the former, the military resources shared by the two kings will function as if they

constitute a single force for this context. Ruth, in contrast, uses no -D particle. She

means that what is shared is literally shared, not simply for one occasion but from

that moment onward in the story. Third, if we may judge from the order of his

words, Jehoshaphat's perspective begins with his own resources, which he is pre-


16/18

"YOURPEOPLE SHALL BE MYPEOPLE" 257

pared to devote to his treaty partner. In contrast, Ruth puts Naomi's people and

god first; what is Naomi's will be Ruth's. In the order of his words, Jehoshaphat

gives what is his to his ally, while Ruth begins with Naomi's belongings andthereby subsumes her identity underthe terms of what makes up Naomi's identity.

Fourth, the relations between the two sets of parties aim for different goals. The

shared relations invoked in the passage from Kings are designed to achieve the

defeat ofthe enemy, which will include the deaths of some of the combatants. In

contrast, Ruth's words serve to maintain shared relations despite the threat to the

family, specifically the potential threat of death posed by the famine. Fifth and

finally, the resources shared by the two kings are mutually shared on the occasion

oftheirjoint militaryactions, whereas the people ofRuth and the people ofNaomido not become one people. Rather, Ruth joins to the people ofNaomi.63 There is

a way in which the end of the narrative reverses this direction of joining, with

Naomi in a sense joining the family ofRuth and Boaz, but for this point, it is nec

essaryto address Ruth's new identity and its unfolding in the context ofthe story.

At the outset of this study, I cited Adele Berlin's insightful observations about

Ruth 1:16-17. She rightly sees a change of identity operative in Ruth's speech.

Accepting Berlin's notion of a change of identity, one may see the nature of the

change in the most repeated element in Ruth's words, and that lies in her use ofthepronominal suffixes. These locate the change of identity in the context of what

Ruth can name as their sharing: their people, their deity, their sojourning, and their

place ofdeath. These are the steps of life that the two women take together from

now on in the story. The book does not stress the idea ofRuth becoming Judean

as such. In fact, the word "Judean" (or "Israelite") does not occur in Ruth. Of

course, Judah. along with Moab, serves as the setting for the story (1:1, 2, 7), and

that Ruth is a Moabite is expressed in the story (1:4, 22; 2:6; 4:5, 10). She recog

nizes herself as a foreigner (2:10). The Judean ethnic identity ofNaomi's family,however, plays no role in the drama that unfolds, save for the veryend ofthe nar

rative. At that point, the book relates Ruth to the "house of Israel" and the line of

descent associated with the line ofJudah (4:11-12). Priorto the ending, the empha

sis falls on Ruth's joining Naomi and herclan, the social setting signaled at the out

set ofthe story (1:1-2). The point of reference focus ofthe D57 is the family or clan

(2:1, 11). Similarly, the is Yhwh as the protective, personal god of Israel

(2:12), not so much Yhwh as the national god. Religion is not the main, overarch

ing concern of the text, but one dimension within a larger fabric of life. Thesojourning ofthe women togetherinvolves their travels back to the family home

in J d h d th l f b i l i th l d f Naomi's t Y t t th d


17/18

258 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69, 2007

Here Ruth's identity marked in 1:16-17 as a familial bond is linked to the general

or national level of Israel. To belong to the household ofNaomi is to connect to the

house of Israel. Yet between these two points in the story, family terms dominate.Naomi and Ruth continue to be characterized, mostly in the narrative, as in-laws

(- in 1:14; 2:11, 18, 19, 23; 3:1, 6, 16, 17; 2:20, 22, 23; 3:1, 6, 17; -TOD in

1:6,7, 8,22; 2:20,22; 4:15). This stands in contrast to the representation ofNaomiherself, who addresses Ruth only as "my daughter." At the time of the death of

Ruth's husband, Naomi calls Ruth and Orpah "my daughters" (1:11, 12, 13), and

after Naomi and Ruth travel together to Bethlehem, Naomi continues to call Ruth

"her daughter" (3:18). As far as the text reveals, Naomi regards Ruth as family,

specifically as her daughter.The story says little more about the relationship, but perhaps more can be

inferred from the unfolding of this tale. The relationship between Naomi and Ruth

began when they became related through a male. After the death ofthe male who

bound the two women together socially, Naomi accepts the place of Ruth in her

life, and overthe course ofthe narrative she guides herinto the family structure and

communal life. By the end of the story, these two women perhaps achieve what

may be regarded as the ideal relationship between in-laws. Through most of the

narrative, the mother-in-law gives a new family context to the daughter-in-law,and at the end the daughter-in-law literally gives new family to the mother-in-law.

So although Ruth technically remains Naomi's daughter-in-law (4:15), at the close

ofthe storyNaomi joins Ruth in a new relationship. With the birth ofRuth's son,

Naomi is called JTIftX (4:16), and the people say that a son is born to Naomi (4:17).

Ruth 4:16-17 thus reverses the situation between the two women: Naomi now joins

Ruth's family in a manner that completes Ruth's words in 1:16-17. In 4:16-17,

Ruth helps to give family to Naomi, just as Naomi accepts Ruth's terms of family

in 1:16-17. Ruth helps to provide the family that Naomi lost and in particular thegrandson that Naomi never had, and within this web of new relations, Ruth and

Naomi found a family and home together. Now it is Ruth's D? that is indeed

Naomi's UV. Implicitly in Ruth's wordsand all the more movingly for its unstated

qualitythese formerly female in-laws enjoy a family relationship that clearly

blurs the social categories of family blood lines versus in-laws; theirs is nothing

less than the love of a mother and her daughter. For, from the beginning to the end

of the story, Naomi calls Ruth "my daughter."


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17

Documents

Transcript of You Shall Be My People - Ruth 1.16-17