Your people will be my people

242

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

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

this essay. I am also grateful to Linda Day for her help.1 So Adele Berlin, Ruth, in Harpers Bible Commentary (ed. James L. Mays; San Francisco:

Harper & Row, 1988) 263.2 Wilhelm Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder (KAT 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 vv. 16-17 in poetic lines. For a characterization of these verses as a very lyrical

section, see Jack M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd ed.; Biblical Seminar 10; Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1989) 31, who cites Paul Humbert, Art et leon de lhistoire de Ruth, in Opuscules dunHbrasant (Neuchtel: Secrtariat de lUniversit, 1958) 83-110, esp. 87-88. Note also KirstenNielsen, Ruth: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 49. For furthercomments on the structure of this discourse, see Irmtraud Fischer, Rut (HTKAT; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder, 2001) 143-44.

4 For textual variants, see the commentaries; none recommends emendation.

Your People Shall Be My People:Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16-17

MARK S. SMITHNew York UniversityNew York, NY 10012

RUTH 1:16-17 BELONGS to one of the most inspiring expressions of interper-sonal solidarity found in the Bible. In view of the moving rhetoric1 of these

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

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

determined as the other, it is Ruths 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

3smith:Layout 1 3/2/2007 2:04 PM Page 242

5 Most render the forms of / 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 in the parallel in 2 Sam15:21 discussed below) or the older locative sense of the word . In either case, the locative senseseems applicable in this instance as indicated by in the final line. The older locative sense ofthe relatives is attested in the development of the noun *'atr, place (Ugaritic 'atr; Aramaic 'atra)into a relative, as attested in KTU 2.39.33b-35: 'adm 'atr 'it bqt w tn 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 clear that 'atr is not functioningas a relative pronoun, though the syntactic function of the word here is the very one that led to its

becoming a relative pronoun (accusative of a noun meaning place = in whatever place wher-

ever which) (p. 156). For comparisons of this passage with EA [El-Amarna tablets] 143:13-

17 and its parallel use of Akkadian aar, see Anson Rainey, Observations on Ugaritic Grammar,UF 3 (1971) 151-72, here 162; and Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Mnster:Ugarit-Verlag, 2000) 798. For further discussions, see UT 19.422; Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik,558, 595, 819, 884, 905, 909; and Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaqun Sanmartn, A Dictionary ofthe Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, part 1, ['(a/i/u)-k] (Handbuch der Orientalistik67; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003) 127.

6 Ruth is not clearly referring to God by name, but seems to be represented as speaking

generically with respect to Naomis god. See 1:15.7 See the Targum to Ruth 1:16, discussed in Campbell, Ruth, 80, and Nielsen, Ruth, 49. For

YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE 243

For to where5 you go, I will go; And in where you lodge, I will lodge;

Your people shall be my people, And your god will be my god.6

In where you die, I will die, And there I will be buried.

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

which is evident from the context. At the same time, for the books ancient audi-

ence Ruths words contain a conceptual sensibility that informs their affective

power. After a brief survey of current proposals in the following section, I venture

to uncover the ancient sensibility of Ruth 1:16-17 through an examination of bib-

lical and extrabiblical parallels.

I. Current Proposals

If the relationship of Naomi and Ruth has been severed socially by the death

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

the new relationship as expressed by Ruths words be understood by an ancient

audience? There have been essentially three approaches to this question.

First, much of Jewish tradition has viewed Ruths words as an expression of

conversion.7 Scholars who address this view largely reject it. Rudolph, Edward


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 Herr, Ruth Rabbah, EncJud 14. 524.8 Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth, 43; Campbell, Ruth, 80; Berlin, Ruth, 263.9 Berlin, Ruth, 263.

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

11 Moshe Weinfeld, Ruth, Book of, EncJud 14. 522. For examples of this view and exten-sive discussion, see Paul Joon, Ruth: Commentaire philologique et exgtique (2nd ed.; SubsidiaBiblica 9; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1993) 4-6. For a useful, cautionary discussion about the situa-

tion in Ezra-Nehemiah, see Gary N. Knoppers, Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diver-

sity in the Genealogy of Judah, JBL 120 (2001) 15-30.12 Yairah Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative (trans. J. Chipman; Biblical Interpre-

tation Series 25; Leiden/Boston/Cologne: Brill, 2000) 84-87.

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. Berlins comments nicely capture the situation at this point in the

book:

In what amounts to a change of identity, from Moabite to Israelite (for there was as yet

no formal procedure or even the theoretical possibility for religious conversion), Ruth

adopts the people and God of Naomi. Religion was bound up with ethnicity in bibli-

cal times; each people had its land and its gods (cf. Mic. 4:5), so that to change reli-

gion meant to change nationality.9

As reflected in this quotation, modern commentators generally reject that the

notion of conversion in its traditional form is represented here. As a modification

of the 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 Ruths 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 910; 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 polemic12

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 Ruths 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-


13 Sasson, Ruth, 29.14 Marjo C. A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pericope 2; Assen: Van Gorcum,

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

the lives of Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion.15 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 Brenners 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 ofBrenners proposal, see Victor H. Matthews, Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary;Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 222. For possible scenarios that may

have induced Ruths choice, see Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Ruth (Interpretation; Louisville: JohnKnox, 1999) 33-34.

16 Campbell, Ruth, 80. The expression of hesed is emphasized also in Nielsen, Ruth, 50; andin Katrina J. A. Larkin, Ruth and Esther (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 50-51.Campbell also views the use of * in 1:6 in covenantal terms.

17 Alice L. Laffey, Ruth, NJBC, 1. 555.18 Andr Lacocque, Ruth: A Continental Commentary (trans. K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis:

Fortress, 2004) 52-54.


tion) as such does not appear to constitute the basic horizons of the terms in Ruths

speech.

Second, some scholars concentrate on the significance of various elements

of 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 for-

eign worker in exchange for benefits issuing from her new social situation in

Bethlehem.15 On the whole, these reflections capture different aspects of Ruths

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 of hesed in Ruth 1:8-9; 2:20; and 3:10, Campbell com-ments 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-day

life, not at the royal court or in the temple, but right here in the narrow compass

of village life.16 Alice L. Laffey characterizes Ruths words as an expression of

covenant fidelity.17 Andr Lacocque has also drawn attention to the use of hesedin 2:20 in his characterization of Ruths change in status in 1:16-17 as one of vol-

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


19 Andr Lacocque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israels Tra-dition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990) 111-12; idem, Ruth, 52.

20 See F. C. Fensham, The Treaty between the Israelites and Tyrians, in Congress Volume:Rome 1968 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 71-87, here 73-76; Herbert Huffmon,The Treaty Background of Hebrew ydav, BASOR 181 (1966) 31-37; Herbert Huffmon and SimonB. Parker, A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew ydav, BASOR 184 (1966) 36-38;and Paul Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulaefrom the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib 88; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,1982) 84. Fensham concentrates on the use of * in 1 Kgs 5:17. For the application of the root todeities, see Deut 32:17 (and verses that may be dependent, Deut 11:28 and 13:3). For a Ugaritic

example, see KTU 1.114.6, 7.21 Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic, 1981] 59) comments on Ruth

2:11: Ruth is conceived by the author as a kind of matriarch by adoption.22 Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Sto-

ries (New York: Schocken, 2002) 241.23 Ibid. I came upon this study only after the completion of this essay; I had already noted the

parallels from the Books of Kings but not the one from 2 Chronicles.


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

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

does echo Ruths expression. As suggested below, this parallel reflects the type of

terms 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 apeople that you had not known ever before ( ). The first part of the last, independent clause echoes Ruths own pledge in1:16, 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 mark

of covenantal relations. In treaty terms, the verb means to recognize politically

(cf. Akkadian id),20 while at the level of the family, the idiom of knowledge mayexpress covenantal recognition across family lines.21 Within the immediate com-

pass of vv. 16-17, however, neither Campbell nor Laffey points to evidence that

would confirm their characterizations of Ruths words as covenantal. In contrast,

Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in her characterization of the words of Ruths speech,

observes that they resonate with the Bibles cadence of covenant and contract.22

In support of her view, 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 fully work out the significance

of their impact for the meaning of Ruths 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


24 For example, Rebecca Alpert (Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of

Ruth, in Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story [ed. Judith A. Kates and GailTwersky Reimer; New York: Ballantine, 1994] 91-96, here 94) comments, Ruth and Naomi are

making a commitment to maintain familial connections.25 On the possible identity of this king as Ahab, see Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings: A new trans-

lation with introduction and commentary (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 472, 498.26 This line, bracketed here, is not in the text. It is arguably implied by the question, and it is

attested in the second passage below, in 2 Kgs 3:7. It is added here for the sake of clarifying the force

and context of the response.


these reasons, it appears appropriate to explicate further Frymer-Kenskys obser-

vation. 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 of struc-

ture, content, and worldview. In the subsequent section, I probe the model of fam-

ily on which these covenantal expressions are based. Here I point out that it is not

covenant that is the lofty concept brought down to routine village life in the book

of Ruth, as Campbell understands the situation; instead, family relations are being

expressed by Ruth, and it is the model of family extended across family lines that

is being expressed in treaty and covenant language. Once the conceptual relation-

ship between family language and covenant has been clarified, in the final part of

the essay I engage the analysis of the biblical parallels to Ruth 1:16-17 and their

implications for understanding the relationship between Naomi and Ruth. This

conclusion of the study confirms what I think many modern readers intuitively

grasp: with her words Ruth establishes a family relationship with Naomi that tran-

scends the death of the male who had connected them, and in fact this relationship

represents a family tie closer than that expressed by the formal status of former in-

laws.24 The 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 22:4

and 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.25

And the king of Israel said to his servants:

Are you aware that Ramot-gilead is ours, yet we do nothing about taking it

from the power of the king of Aram?

And he said to Jehoshaphat:

Will you go with me ( ) to war at Ramot-gilead?And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel:

[I will go up () with you;]26


27 See Judg 8:18 for this syntax: .28 So the NJPS translation. For discussion of Mesha as , see Richard C. Steiner, Stockmen

from Tekoa, Sycomores from Sheba (CBQMS 36; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association ofAmerica, 2003) 70-87, esp. 77, 85.

29 For the construction of C-stem of - , see BDB 999a, #2f, citing to give 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

accusative instead of -).30 See Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings: A new translation with introduction and

commentary (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988) 44: the verb hlak is used as an auxiliary withthe meaning to be aroused to action. They cite Samuel David Luzzato on Exod 2:1, and compare

Gen 35:22; Deut 17:3; 1 Kgs 16:31; Hos 1:3; and Jer 3:8.31 Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 44; cf. Cogan, 1 Kings, 489.


Like me, like you ( ),27

Like my people, like your people ( ),Like my horses, like your horses ( ). (1 Kgs 22:1-4)

Now Mesha, king of Moab, was a sheep-breeder,28 and he would pay29 to the king of

Israel 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. And

that 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 ( ) to Moab for war (against him)?And he [Jehoshaphat] said:

I will go up () [with you]:Like me, like you ( ),Like my people, like your people ( ),Like my horses, like your horses ( ).

And he asked:

Which road shall we go up ()?And he [Jehoram] said:

The road of the wilderness of Edom. (2 Kgs 3:4-7)

Both passages present the kings of Israel and Judah preparing to join in war-

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

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

Moab. In both cases, the king of Israel calls on King Jehoshaphat of Judah for aid,

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

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

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

note the treaty relations involved here, and they cite 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 of my lord, I am enemy; with

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


32 Jerome T. Walsh, 1 Kings, NJBC, 1. 174.33 Christopher T. Begg, 2 Kings, NJBC, 1. 175.34 Cogan, 1 Kings, 489.35 For this sense of the word, see also L. Kutler, A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite

Communal Terminology, JANES 14 (1982) 69-77, here 71-72.36 BDB, 454a.37 Bruce K. Waltke and M. OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 203, 204, ##9 and 10.


role of Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:1-4: Jehoshaphats deference suggests Judahs sta-

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

22:1-4, Christopher T. 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 Judahs subordinate

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

of the 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 in thisusage 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 of the -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. OConnor 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 nor Waltke and OConnor cite the two Kings passages, but

their remarks may permit an inference about the construction in these two

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

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

texts 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,

whats 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-


38 Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 103.39 Ibid.40 Ibid., 102.


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 sur-

vey 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 Kalluveettils 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 (PRU IV, pp. 228-29):

As for me I have said: Everything of my house is yours and everything of your house

is mine (gab-bi mar--ti a b-t-ya a-na ku-n-u-nu mar-[-tu] a b-t-ku-nu at-t-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 inakkadischer 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- itn).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 to

Nimmureya (a.k.a. Amenophis III) to request gold. In order to add persuasive force

to his request, Tushratta reminds Amenophis, This country is my brothers coun-


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 oneof friendship, send me much gold. And this is your house. Write me so what you need may be

fetched. 42 Moran, Amarna Letters, 65.43 The same phrasing appears also in a similar edict of Mursilis II known from Ugarit: RS

17.335 + 379 + 381 + 235, lines 3-4 (PRU IV, p. 71). See also Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazki: Auto-graphien (Deutsche Orientgesellschaft; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916; repr., Osnabrck: Zeller, 1970) 16, rev. 9 (cited in CAD I/J: 276a, #6c): we, the sons of the great king Shuppiluliuma, all of us andour families are one (nnu mr RN arri rab gabbini u btini lu 1-en). CAD I/J: 276a translatesthe last phrase of one mind, but in view of the other cases, this level of specificity is not required.


try, and this house is my brothers house (line 70).41 The rhetoric in this case

assumes a large shared household of these two brothers, itself a common term

in parity-treaty relations.

3. RS 20.162, lines 17-19 (Ugaritica V [Mission de Ras Shamra XVI; Paris:Imprimerie nationale, 1939] 115):

Amurru and Ugarit are one (mat Ma-mur-ri mat Mu-ga-ri-te istnen-ma unu).

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 (PRU IV, p. 80):

For a long time, the king of Ugarit and the king of Siyannu were one (ul-tu la-be-er-ti r mat al-ga-ri-it r mat als-ia-an-ni itn en-nu-tu4 u-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 has

been found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descended

from 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,


44 Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: 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, ABD,6. 176-77. See further Stephanie von Dobbeler, Die Bcher 1/2 Makkaber (Neuer Stuttgarter Kom-mentarAltes Testament 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997) 121-22.

45 For a critical discussion of the figures involved and their dates, see further Neil J. McEleney,

12 Maccabees, NJBC, 1. 437.46 Goldstein, I Maccabees, 451. In his portrait of Galba, the Roman historian Suetonius

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

mer general, Galba was met by soldiers on their mission to assassinate him. As he realized their

intent, he is said to have shouted out: What is all this, comrades? I am yours, you are mine! (Egovester sum et vos mei). See J. C. Rolfe, Suetonius, with an English Translation (2 vols.; LCL;Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1914) 2. 222. The translation is

taken from Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars (trans. Robert Graves; rev. with intro-duction by Michael Grant; London: Penguin, 2003) 259.


and ours are yours ( , ). We have, therefore, given orders that you should be told of this. (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 early third century B.C.E. during the time of Onias I(high priest from ca. 323300 or 290 B.C.E.) and Arius I (Spartan king from ca.309265 B.C.E.).45 Here the treaty language of brotherhood entails the partiesresources, 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 of shared 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 of context, these stand at a con-

siderable distance from the situation of Ruth. What fundamentally underlies these

differences is a matter of international 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 lofty concept 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.

Campbells view was understandable in view of the pace and direction of

scholarship on ancient Near Eastern 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


47 Dennis J. McCarthy, S.J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient OrientalDocuments and in the Old Testament (New edition completely rewritten; AnBib 21A; Rome: Pon-tifical Biblical Institute, 1978). See also his Institution and Narrative: Collected Essays (AnBib108; 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 includeMichael L. Barr, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia: A Studyin Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty Tradition (JHNES; Baltimore/London: Johns HopkinsUniversity 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, AncientNear 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. DeanMcBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 427-47; Theodore J. Lewis, The Identity and Function of

El/Baal Berith, JBL 115 (1996) 401-23; Saul M. Olyan, Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relationsin Ancient Israel, JBL 115 (1996) 201-18; and S. David Sperling, The Original Torah: The Polit-ical Intent of the Bible Writers (New York/London: New York University Press, 1998) 61-74.

50 Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon, 1970).51 Moshe Weinfeld points out that Biblical Hebrew is to be understood as an obliga-

tion bound by oath (BertCovenant vs. Obligation, Bib 56 [1975] 120-28, esp. 123-25).


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 termsfather 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 Douglass

expression, a natural symbol for expressing these sets of relations.50 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 Joshuas scouts via an oath by which they promise to do

hesed to 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


52 William 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 Bib-lical Account of 1 Samuel xx-xxii in the Light of Hittite Texts, VT 55 (2005) 251-68, esp. 258.

53 Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 6. This usage has been thought to be relativelylate. Sperling (Original Torah, 65-66) remarks: There can be little doubt that post-exilic Hebrewbroadened the semantic range bert to include the marriage relation, under the influence of the Akka-dian riksu/rikistu. Like bert, the Akkadian term riksu means contract but was used from earliesttimes for a full range of contractual agreements, from marriage to international treaties.

54 Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 8, 11-12.55 Cross, From Epic to Canon, 11.


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

Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:3; 20:8; 23:18), often comes to mind in discussions

of 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 DavidJonathan

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 Mal 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 widevariety of nonroyal examples of covenant language. Like Crosss essay, Kallu-

veettils volume indicated that covenant is modeled on family and was operative


56 Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 7-16.57 Ibid., 205.58 Ibid., 15.59 Ibid., 205.


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

or parties who were otherwise unrelated to one another.56 Kalluveettil accordingly

characterizes 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

Ruths 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; Ruths 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 Ruths wish in terms of covenant; how-

ever, Ruths 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; Like my people, like your people; Like my horses, like your horses.

Ruth in Ruth 1:16b:

Your people shall be my people, And your god will be my god.


60 I owe this observation and the reference in the following footnote to William Holladay.61 For discussion, see H. Ringgren, ' elhm, TDOT, 1. 279-80. For passages that shift the

pronominal usage in order to express exclusion from this sort of relationship, see, e.g., Exod 32:7,

11; also Isa 7:13; Jer 42:2-3.62 For * in contexts of battle, see BDB 748b, #2c, citing Num 13:21; Judg 1:1; 12:3; 1 Sam

7:7; Isa 36:12; etc.


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 addressees. Marking these expressions of relationship is the use

of the 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 of their speeches, 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 (*)with their different addressees: the kings will go together in battle, while the

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

or tribal level in Judg 4:8. To Deborahs 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 of the passages from Kings, Jehoshaphat adds I will go up (*) inhis response to the question of going together as posed in the question put to him.

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

force of the words in both sets of texts. First, the parallel terms in Jehoshaphats

speeches are military resources, while Ruths words have family and religious

terms standing in parallelism. So, as noted in section II, in the two contexts res-onates differently: force(s) for Jehoshaphat, but people for Ruth. Second,

Jehoshaphats words carry the double - construction, while Ruths do not. So forthe 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 - particle. Shemeans 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, Jehoshaphats perspective begins with his own resources, which he is pre-


63 I wish to thank John Van Seters for pointing out this contrast to me.64 See Knoppers, Intermarriage, 22.


pared to devote to his treaty partner. In contrast, Ruth puts Naomis people and

god first; what is Naomis will be Ruths. In the order of his words, Jehoshaphat

gives what is his to his ally, while Ruth begins with Naomis belongings and

thereby subsumes her identity under the terms of what makes up Naomis 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 of the enemy, which will include the deaths of some of the combatants. In

contrast, Ruths 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

of their joint military actions, whereas the people of Ruth and the people of Naomi

do not become one people. Rather, Ruth joins to the people of Naomi.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 of Ruth and Boaz, but for this point, it is nec-

essary to address Ruths new identity and its unfolding in the context of the story.

At the outset of this study, I cited Adele Berlins insightful observations about

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

Accepting Berlins notion of a change of identity, one may see the nature of the

change in the most repeated element in Ruths words, and that lies in her use of the

pronominal 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 of death. 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 of Ruth 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 of Naomis family,

however, plays no role in the drama that unfolds, save for the very end of the nar-

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

descent associated with the line of Judah (4:11-12). Prior to the ending, the empha-

sis falls on Ruths joining Naomi and her clan, the social setting signaled at the out-

set of the story (1:1-2). The point of reference focus of the 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. The

sojourning of the women together involves their travels back to the family home

in Judah, and the place of burial is the land of Naomis ancestors. Yet at the end,

the national royal line emerges as the books ultimate trajectory (4:17, 18-22).64



Here Ruths 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 of Naomi 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; - in1:6, 7, 8, 22; 2:20, 22; 4:15). This stands in contrast to the representation of Naomi

herself, who addresses Ruth only as my daughter. At the time of the death of

Ruths 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 of the male who

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

life, and over the course of the narrative she guides her into 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 Naomis daughter-in-law (4:15), at the close

of the story Naomi joins Ruth in a new relationship. With the birth of Ruths son,

Naomi is called (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

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

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

in 1:16-17. Ruth helps to provide the family that Naomi lost and in particular the

grandson that Naomi never had, and within this web of new relations, Ruth and

Naomi found a family and home together. Now it is Ruths that is indeedNaomis . Implicitly in Ruths wordsand all the more movingly for its unstatedqualitythese 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.


Your people will be my people

Documents

Transcript of Your people will be my people