Content provided in partnership with
Bitterness and friendship: a feminist exegesis of the Book of Ruth
Currents in Theology and Mission, Feb, 2005 by Joseph W. Blotz
The Book of Ruth has been an object of contention for many feminist scholars of the Bible. While recognizing the great strides the book makes on behalf of women, scholars also recognize how far the work on a whole has fallen short of some feminist ideals.
Ruth is one of only two books in the Hebrew canon that bears the name of a woman. (1) It is the only book in which the main characters are women, strong women who take some control of their own destiny and situation. The text is filled with instances in which the female protagonists seek out solutions to their tribulations, which, in the end, they succeed in overcoming.
The text does, however, continue to operate within the patriarchal structure of ancient Israelite culture. In this context, these women have limited social standing and power. They persevere through acts of manipulation not only of the societal norms and the men in power but also of each other. This manipulation may include the physical subjugation of Ruth on the threshing-room floor in chapter 3.
There are two predominant ways in which feminist critics approach the Book of Ruth: that of recovery and that of resistance. The reading of recovery raises up the characters of Ruth and Naomi as models of women that can be emulated today. According to this view Ruth and Naomi exemplify friendship, loyalty, and Abrahamic fidelity. In the imagined dialogue that follows between two undergraduate students of the Old Testament, Shannon exemplifies this approach. The reading of resistance sees the text as so steeped in patriarchy that little if anything can be gleaned from it other than to study it as yet another example of the religious tradition's suppression of women. Ruth provides insights into how the biblical tradition is one of the roots of the continued oppression of women today. This is the view of Kara.
Dialogue
Kara: Hi, Shannon! Almost time for Old Testament class. Did you finish the reading?
Shannon: Yes, I did. Wasn't it great? Finally we have a story about strong women who take control of their own lives and situations.
K: You're kidding, right?
S: What do you mean, kidding?
K: This story was a step forward, I'll give you that, but it is still steeped in patriarchal language and views of women's roles. It embodies precisely what we need to move beyond. It had such promise. Ruth and Naomi could have been leaving that all behind, but then they have to go and look for a male relative to "redeem" them. I mean, what do they need redemption from?
S: Wait. If we are going to look at this text critically, can we at least start at the beginning?
K: That's fine with me. Look, from the start we are bogged down by the language of this writing. It says, "A man of Bethlehem in Judah and his wife and two sons" (1:1). Right away Naomi is defined by the men in her life. She is the man's wife and is not even listed as any relation to the sons. It's as if they were not even her children. And the situation gets only slightly better as we move on when she is actually named as Naomi, but still in terms of Elimelech as her husband (1:2). [Rosen 1994]
S: Think of how powerful that is. How many women were named in the Hebrew Scriptures?
K: Far too few.
S: I agree. That is why this text is so important. A name is power. The fact that Naomi has a name at all speaks of her strength and importance.
K: Yes, her importance in relation to another man, King David. Were it not for him we would not even have this story. [Hamlin 1996]
S: Come on, Kara, we're getting ahead of ourselves again.
K: All right, back to the first chapter.
S: Right. If you would have kept on reading you would have quickly seen that the tides soon change. In verse 3 Elimelech is called Naomi's husband, and now Naomi is left with "her two sons." It is also here that we first hear of Orpah and Ruth. It would seem that it is Naomi who arranged their marriages, as Elimelech was dead. She took control of her situation. Her sons needed wives and she found them. [Sohn 1994]
K: And then in verse 5 all that we thought we had gained is gone. Naomi is left without her husband, without her sons, and without her name. That tells me that the author saw Naomi's identity as being wrapped up not in who she was as a person but in who she was to the men around her. [Brenner 1999]
S: Yes, but let's look at the times. Most women were defined culturally by the men in their lives. Don't you see how even though the author tries to define them in these terms they still break out of traditional roles?
K: Shannon, as you would say, you're jumping ahead of yourself.
S: Right, sorry. So Naomi leaves Moab with her daughters-in-law ...
K: Where did their names go?
S: ... to return from the land of Moab (1:6).
K: And where are they going? In the whole of this verse we don't really hear where they are going until verse 7. Only at the end of that verse is Judah referred to as the place. [Sohn 1994]
S: I did some outside reading and discovered that the rabbis had something to say about that. They said that at the beginning of a journey it is easier to acknowledge what you are leaving than where you are going. Once on the trip you are focused on where you are heading, not where you have been. [Sohn 1994]
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Arts
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »