Ruth and Boaz Doing Whatever on the Threshing-Room Floor

For Old Testament, we students reflect weekly on “some topic, aspect or concept” from the volumes and volumes of assigned reading. I am limited to one single-spaced page each week, and in every case I’ve been forced to cut myself off from writing. So read knowing that my thoughts are manifold!

If you are interested in more selections from my School of Theology Coursework, follow the link to the category of SOT Coursework. I have also set up a new category for these Old Testament reflection papers called OT Weeklies. If all goes well, each new reflection paper will be posted automatically at 2:00 p.m. each Monday, when my Old Testament class convenes.

What follows is my reflection paper from the week of November 1. Enjoy!

————————————————————————————————–

The account of Ruth at the threshing-room floor (Ru 3:6-15) strikes me as a bizarre, logic-defying story. When considering whether the narrative is a historically accurate representation of an actual interaction between Boaz of Bethlehem and Ruth the Moabitess, I could not help but conclude that I was actually reading a cover-up for sexual impropriety. How could an unmarried, drunk forty-something[1], upon awakening up from his euphoric stupor, resist a foreign woman who both uncovered and took rest by his “feet,” a term used and understood to mean “genitalia?” Was he plagued by a hangover? Surely something mischievous may have taken place; even Ruth and Boaz were concerned with how the scene might appear if gossip reached the town square (Ru 3:14). But in attempting to research further support by which to decode this chapter’s sexual innuendo, I found that the author of Ruth constructed a literary masterpiece contrastive to Genesis 19 in order to exemplify both Ruth and Boaz as law-abiding all-stars. This reflection paper will elaborate on the fantastic hidden elements of Ruth 3.

A mountain of research suggests that chronologically, thematically and grammatically, Ruth may have originally been included at the end of the book of Judges, and was only removed later to form its own book.[2] But for Warren Austin Gage, lending the most credence to this theory is the correlation between the sin of Gibeah (Jgs 19) and Ruth 3 as a unit reflective of Genesis 19.[3] For example, in the stories of both Gibeah and the destruction of Sodom (Gn 19:1-28), men of the city seek visiting male strangers for sexual gratification, only for the host to offer two women as a substitute, “suggesting that the author of Judges intended his hearer to identify the sin of Gibeah with that of Sodom.”[4] That leaves the account of Lot and his daughters in their cave as a parallel to Ruth and Boaz at the threshing-room floor. If we take the texts at face value, Lot’s daughters act unlawfully, while Ruth retains her honor. Gage especially appreciates that Lot’s daughters receive their father’s seed, while Ruth receives only Boaz’s grain.[5] Boaz redeems Ruth, but in a sense, her upright actions both redeem and set the proper example for Moab, which had its beginnings in the incestuous act of Lot’s conniving older daughter.

Upon returning to Bethlehem, Naomi takes it upon herself to resolve basic problems through the instrument of Ruth. The first problem – a lack of food – is solved by sending Ruth to glean for barley in Boaz’s fields, which is consistent with Mosaic Law (Lv 23:22). On the other hand, in order to solve the more difficult problem of offspring, Naomi encourages Ruth to approach Boaz alone at night on the threshing room floor while wearing her finest clothes, and only after he had partaken in food and drink. What she asks of Ruth in this case is entirely inconsistent with Mosaic Law, and Boaz is intricately aware of this.[6] Though he must wait until the following day, Boaz responds by addressing the legal proceeding at the town gate and by first offering both Ruth and the fields of Elimelech to the unnamed nearer kinsman (Ru 4:1-12).

What really happened at Boaz’s threshing-room floor? Did Ruth give him a biblical booty call? If she didn’t, would she have if Boaz told her to do so, as Naomi instructed (Ru 3:4)? For the author, who must have been uniquely aware of the situation he was penning, these questions were apparently less important than presenting Ruth and Boaz as standard-bearers, as personified examples of Mosaic Law gone right. By design, Boaz is a covenant-keeper and kinsman-redeemer, whereas Yahweh rewards the submissive Ruth with a son, Obed.

[1] Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 198.

[2] Warren Austin Gage, “Ruth Upon the Threshing Room Floor and the Sin of Gibeah: A Biblical-Theological Study,” Westminster Theological Journal 51, no. 2 (Fall 1989), 369-370.

[3] Ibid., 370.

[4] Ibid., 371.

[5] Ibid., 373.

[6] Charles P. Baylis, “Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant,” Bibliotheca Sacra 161, no. 644 (October-December 2004), 430.

Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife: An Exegesis, Part 2

For Old Testament this semester, I had to complete a 12-page exegesis on some passage of 15 verses or so from Genesis through 2 Kings. Given that I have always enjoyed the story of Joseph, I chose the pericope of the young, svelte servant man and his master’s wife. You are reading Part 2 of that study. Enjoy!

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

——————————————————–

3. Context

Inasmuch as Genesis and Exodus were intended to be read seamlessly, the redactors of these texts required a method by which “Israel in light of the promise [to Abraham] had its start in Egypt rather than Canaan.”[1] The expansive Joseph narrative provides this essential step, and more pointedly, Joseph’s purchase by a dignitary of the Egyptian court is the means by which Joseph will come to an audience with Pharaoh, thereby preventing Israel’s house from falling victim to famine. Unfortunately, historians attempting to date the passage must admit that “a historical inexactness pervades the Joseph narrative.”[2] Indeed, no name for Pharaoh is supplied, and no reference is made to other aspects of recorded Egyptian history, so any dating hypothesis must work backwards from an estimate of the exodus, which itself is fraught with disagreement among scholars. Historians are left with a range of more than six centuries, perhaps from “the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2100-1786) and the Second Intermediate era (ca. 1786-1550).”[3]

Similarly, the dating of the writing of Joseph’s story follows a natural progression from scholars’ individual assessments of the Documentary Hypothesis. Whereas elements of the Joseph narrative are thought to be from both the Yahwist and the Elohist, Genesis 39 is regarded as a united chapter originating from the Yahwist.[4] Given this attribution and the Joseph narrative’s sequential flow from the patriarchal stories, general consensus dates the narrative’s origin to the ninth or tenth centuries BCE, during the rule of David or Solomon.[5] In contrast to the “crude and disjointed tales” of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, however, Joseph’s story stands out as a “polished, sophisticated novelette.”[6]

Immediately preceding the passage in Scripture is an interlude about Joseph’s older brother Judah, which does not fit particularly well anywhere within the larger Genesis narrative. The story of Joseph in the house of Potiphar is best understood, then, as following Genesis 37, the conclusion of which relates that Joseph has been sold into slavery in Egypt (Gn 37:36). At the end of the passage at hand, we learn that Joseph is prospering in prison (Gn 39:23), and the next chapter resumes the sequential narrative by relating some of his in-prison interactions with the baker and the butler (Gn 40:1-19). Accordingly, Genesis 39 is the first act of Joseph’s rise in Egypt, which comes to fruition only after a major setback.

The passage reflects from the motif of a subordinate male pressured to surrender to the advances of a married woman, as in Egyptian, Greek, Indian and Persian literature, among others.[7] And though Joseph’s encounter with Potiphar’s wife is not an exact mirror image of any one story, “the innocent victim generally escapes death” in each case, as Joseph does, and its similarities with the Egyptian “Tale of the Two Brothers” suggest that this was likely known by the author of the Joseph story.[8] Into this borrowed motif the narrator has inserted a formative, powerful theme of God’s prosperous presence.

Joseph and Potiphar's Wife #2 — We got the Egyptian part right, but this time gave Joseph a terrible haircut!

4. Form and Structure

The Joseph story reads as a cohesive narrative unit distinct in many ways from the rest of Genesis. Seeking specificity, scholars refer to the Joseph story formulaically as a novella, and the largest one found in the Bible at that.[9] As a novella, it is chiefly written to entertain, and is “not an account of events and person that bears the stamp of historical reporting,”[10] though it is certainly possible that historical events can be woven into the novella’s creative fabric. Viewing the passage at hand as the opening part of the Genesis 39-41 trio, readers find that “with great skill the narrator is careful to shape each of these three scenes in such a way that they have the effect of a whole, each with its own arc of tension with introduction, climax and conclusion.”[11] Borrowing further from the lexicon of a theatrical drama, our passage can be interpreted as a single act within Joseph’s rise to a position of status in Egypt, an act upon which the rest of the play depends. But a novella is not borne out of genealogical lists, recitations of laws or poetry. Instead, “the novella moves easily into the private and personal, reporting intimate conversations and often even the thoughts of characters in a detail that would be available to no one but their creator.”[12] It is significant to note that Genesis 39 jumps from interactions between Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Gn 39:7-12), to Potiphar and his wife (Gn 39:17-19) and finally to an imprisoned Joseph (Gn 39:20-23). With no common individual in these signature events of the novella, readers can easily conclude that at least portions of the dialogue and details are less than historically accurate.

Therefore, the function of this act of the novella is derived from its narrator’s creative purpose. The author took a well-known “wandering tale,” adapted it to fit the characters and social situation—with Joseph as a highly exalted slave and the woman as his master’s wife—and created an “enthusiastic embellishment of a piece he must have found in oral form.”[13] To the built-in moral imperative of resisting sexual temptation, the author added the imagery of control transferring from hand to hand and the theological element of God’s presence with, and blessing upon, the tempted. It was then committed to writing and, in time, “was taken up into the larger Pentateuchal narrative, possibly in a revision of the Yahwist’s epic, to provide an extended transition between major themes in the Torah story.”[14]

With the way that themes and key words are repeated in the passage, it is no wonder that some scholars consider it “the most elegantly symmetrical episode in Genesis.”[15] Structurally, this act of the novella contains its own distinct introduction, body and introduction-reflecting conclusion, which serves to set up the chapter that follows in the royal prison. The structure appears as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION: Joseph’s Role in Potiphar’s House (v. 1-6a)

A.             Connective Tissue from Gn 37:36; Potiphar Purchases Joseph (v. 1)
B.             Joseph Finds Favor from Yahweh (v. 2)
C.             Joseph Finds Favor, Special Status from Potiphar (v. 3-4)
D.             Joseph’s Favor Transferred to Potiphar’s House (v. 5-6a)

II. BODY: Joseph’s Fall from Favor (v. 6b-19a)[16]

A. Lust Overcomes Potiphar’s Wife (v. 6b-7)
B. Joseph’s Restraint Explained (v. 8-9)

III. CONCLUSION: Joseph Relocated to Prison (v. 19b-20)

A.             Potiphar Reacts, Sends Joseph to Prison (v. 19b-20)
B.             Yahweh’s Favor Remains with Joseph (v. 21)
C.             Yahweh Imparts Favor, Status to Joseph from the Prison’s Keeper (v. 22)
D.             Joseph’s Actions Prosper, and are Transferred to Prison by Implication (v. 23)

While the conclusion is not a perfect linguistic reflection of the introduction, they share many of the same elements. Twice the introduction notes that Yahweh was with Joseph, and this is twice relayed in the conclusion. Three times the introduction identifies Yahweh as the source of success and blessing over Joseph, and the conclusion adds this again once more. Additionally, in both instances Joseph is taken to a new setting, shown the Lord’s favor, shown his master’s favor, and given success from Yahweh.

[1] Matthews, 51.

[2] W. Lee Humphreys, Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), 20.

[3] Matthews, 53.

[4] Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, rev. ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 364.

[5] Claus Westermann, Genesis 37-50: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), 25.

[6] Donald B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph: (Genesis 37-50), vol. XX of Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1970), 1.

[7] Hermann Gunkel, The Folktale in the Old Testament, trans. Michael D. Rutter (Sheffield, England: The Almond Press, 1987), 139.

[8] Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis = Be-reshit: The Traditional Hebrew Text with New JPS Translation, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 276; Westermann, 65.

[9] Humphreys, Joseph and His Family, 19.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Westermann, 60.

[12] Humphreys, Joseph and His Family, 19.

[13] Gunkel, 139; Redford, 181-182.

[14] Humphreys, Joseph and His Family, 29.

[15] Alter, 221.

[16] As they are not the primary exegetical focus, verses 10-19a are extracted from this structural exposition.

Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife: An Exegesis, Part 1

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

——————————————————–

In all this the novella seeks to reflect life, to present the truth in life: not what happened once in the past, but what happens. This is how people act, and will act again and again.

—W. Lee Humphreys, Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study

1. Introduction

With its flowing, differentiated scenes and complex literary elements, the Joseph novella is one of the most gripping and suspenseful stories in the Bible. Borrowing from the motif of a wise man, the narrative involves a youthful sage who triumphs against all odds to save a nation.[1] But for all its points of connection with oral and written traditions of the Ancient Near East—including that of devious married woman versus innocent hero[2]—the Joseph novella is a vital transition to Yahweh’s direct involvement with the sons of Israel, as “up until Genesis 37, God is in the story of Jacob’s sons only as they are a part of their father’s story.”[3] The presence of Yahweh is absolutely essential if Joseph, alone and enslaved in Egypt, is ever to rise from the household of Potiphar and fulfill his destiny. Accordingly, this paper is an exegetical study of Joseph and the presence of Yahweh, as found in Genesis 39:1-9, 20-23.

Joseph & Potiphar's Wife — A very white, European interpretation of Joseph and Potiphar's wife.

2. Text and Translation

This passage’s most interesting textual oddity identifies Potiphar as an “official” of Pharaoh’s court; while this translation appears in standard English versions unanimously, the Hebrew noun saris “means either ‘a eunuch’ or ‘an official.’ Potiphar’s wife’s attraction to Joseph . . . might seem different if her husband were understood to be a eunuch.”[4] Indeed, rabbinic exegetical tradition elaborated extensively on this possibility, with some early writers excusing Potiphar’s wife altogether for what would have been “ordinary human desires, particularly that of motherhood.”[5] However, this paper will make use of the common understanding of Potiphar merely as a court official, the captain of the guard.

Some scholars see a major problem with English translations of the Old Testament that abstractly interpret the original Hebrew’s “extraordinary concreteness, manifested especially in a fondness for images rooted in the human body.”[6] The Hebrew text of Genesis 39 utilizes this imagery abundantly, with body parts and functions like eyes, hands, and sight expressing concepts ranging from responsibility or control to perspective and perception.[7] Unfortunately, English versions often present the terms’ connotations rather than their denotations, as is the case with “in Joseph’s hand” being rendered as “under Joseph’s authority” (Gn 39:23 NKJV). For this reason I am working from the NRSV, which tends to maintain intent, with an eye toward Robert Alter’s more concrete translation of the original Hebrew.[8]

[1] Kenneth A. Matthews, Genesis 11:27-50:26, vol. 1B of The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005), 52.

[2] Judith McKinlay, “Potiphar’s Wife in Conversation,” Feminist Theology, no. 10 (September 1995), 75.

[3] W. Lee Humphreys, The Character of God in the Book of Genesis: A Narrative Appraisal (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 205.

[4] Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L. Weiss, eds., The Torah: A Women’s Commentary (New York: URJ Press, 2008), 221.

[5] James L. Kugel, In Potiphar’s House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990), 76; Heather A. McKay, “Confronting Redundancy as Middle Manager and Wife: The Feisty Woman of Genesis 39,” Semeia, no. 87 (March 1999), 215.

[6] Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), xix.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Alter regards Genesis 37 and 39 as a “fine object lesson about how biblical narrative is misinterpreted when translators tamper with the purposeful and insistent physicality of its language.” Ibid., xxiii.

Church Reformers Before Luther: St. Francis and John Wycliffe

I find that I do enjoy posting some of my regular coursework, whether or not it brings in the page views and comments! This post’s selection comes from my Church History course, and though the assignments for this class are more informal (in common language, etc.) than in Old Testament class, I do believe they are valuable in certain sense. It’s all about making the past accessible to everyone, right?

Please feel free to interact with this as you so choose! I hope everyone has a great Tuesday.

———————————————————-

This week’s assigned readings covered about 400 years of church history, ranging from about the tenth to fifteenth centuries of the Common Era. Over that time, there was a somewhat cyclical pattern of theological development, abuses within the hierarchical Catholic Church, and reformation-minded individuals who would come to symbolize a more authentic application of the message of Jesus for the society at large. For this assignment, I have selected two significant people from this latter reformation-minded group.

St. Francis of Assisi: Born into a life of privilege, St. Francis rejected the materialism of his youth and his tracked career to knighthood to embrace an authentic version of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Within his life “devoted to apostolic poverty,”[1] St. Francis instituted his group of followers as Lesser Brothers (Friars Minor), known today as the Franciscan order. St. Francis did not live to the age of 50, and his later years were spent mostly in isolation, where apparently even the birds enjoyed listening to his preaching and teaching. As a microcosm of St. Francis’ devotion to an authentic application of Jesus’ message, he is perhaps best known today for his famous quote, paraphrased: “Preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words.”

John Wycliffe: Whereas St. Francis sought a certain harmony with the church establishment, from the very beginning John Wycliffe took a more confrontational approach. An Oxford University philosopher, Wycliffe opposed transubstantiation and was condemned by the pope for not backing corrupt priests.[2] Though he did not use this terminology, Wycliffe essentially believed that churchgoers could achieve a relationship with God without the mediation of a priest. This belief was central to his most-remembered feat, the first thorough translation of the Bible into English (late fourteenth century). Known as the “Lollards,” a group of his followers assisted in translating the Bible and carried on Wycliffe’s legacy to the degree that Wycliffe is sometimes called the “Morning Star of the Reformation.”[3] Unfortunately, the Wycliffe Bible is fraught with errors, and is written in difficult-to-read, antiquated English. From a more systematic standpoint, it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which renders it less significant than William Tyndale’s translation from the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, though Tyndale’s version appeared some 130 years after the Wycliffe’s. Somewhat ironically, Tyndale would come to face staunch opposition to his Bible translation project, in part from the church’s fear of Wycliffe’s Lollards. However, both Wycliffe and Tyndale shared the dream of a Bible that would be available in the common tongue, and for his undertaking Wycliffe should be remembered fondly as a challenger and reformer of the church establishment.

Though they preceded the Great Reformation, St. Francis of Assisi and John Wycliffe should be metaphorically viewed as stepping stones to the porch of Martin Luther and other great thinkers whose perspectives came to challenge the ills of the medieval Catholic Church. Both are significant figures whose contributions to Christian development should not be forgotten.

[1] Robert G. Clouse, Introduction to the History of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 272.

[2] Tim Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 344.

[3] Wholesome Words, “John Wycliffe, Bible Translator, Morning Star of Reformation,” http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/biorpwycliffe.html (accessed October 17, 2010).

On Bloody Icing and Christmas Truces

What follows is my reflection paper from the week of October 18. Enjoy!

————————————————————————————————–

The latter half of the book of Judges is the bloody icing on a cake of senseless violence baked in the book’s first twelve chapters. With just a handful of generations’ time having passed since Joshua’s renewal of the covenant at Shechem (Jo 24:1-28), Israelites resort not only to aggression against “other” enemies (Jgs 3:12-25; 11:32-33; 16:25-30), but also to acts of brutality and redemptive violence against one another (Jgs 12:4-6; 21:10-12). But in both casualties and savagery, standing out distinctively among this history of carnage is the civil war pitting the Benjaminites against the rest of Israel, including its precursor event and aftermath (Jgs 19-21). This paper features reflections on the cyclical, defeating nature of redemptive violence as attested to by the Levite and his concubine and significant wars of the twentieth century.

A lengthy and repetitive set-up involving an unidentified Levite and his unnamed concubine, who is relentlessly raped by a pack of men, eventually leads to the mobilization of Israel to seize “those wicked men of Gibeah” (Jgs 20:13 NIV). It is only when the tribe of Benjamin collectively refuses to surrender the offenders that this approach escalates into a major war involving many thousands of men (Jgs 20:13-17). Recognizing the continuation of a theme present throughout the entire book, and especially in the lives of Deborah (Jgs 4-5) and Delilah (Jgs 16), Jo Ann Hackett surmises that not only is violence “a function of the lawless era [Judges] describes,” but it is also closely connected to the actions of women, or in the case of the Levite’s concubine, the inability to act.[1] Her sacrifice, gang rape, death and gruesome postmortem treatment also serve as a metaphor for the greater savagery and lack of peace among the tribes of Israel, for in the same way that she is divided into pieces by the Levite, so too will the tribes become divided. Alice A. Keefe writes that the violence perpetrated against the violated woman and the “social body” of Israel becomes increasingly redemptive and senseless, noting, “Judges 19 visually presents a woman’s body, broken and dismembered. There is an element of dark absurdity in both the horror of the woman’s fate . . . and the horror of a war among the tribes which is to no purpose except mass death and more rape.”[2]

History, as the old adage says, repeats itself. While not involving rape, June 1914 saw the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, an event that sparked declarations of war among world superpowers, including Germany, Great Britain and Russia. This singular event – minor, though tragic – became a catalyst for the cruel devastation of war, much like the Levite and his concubine. Years later, the United States joined the fray, but only months into the war, British and German trench soldiers must have recognized that they were already sick of the senseless, redemptive and inhumane violence already triggered by the conflict. For just a few days, soldiers tossed food – not hand grenades – into their enemy’s trench and exchanged not bullets, but favorite carols.[3] The occasion was Christmas Day 1914, and though this truce only lasted a few days, it is a beautiful portrait of what can happen when humans recognize the humanity of “the other.” Of course, this Great War continued for three more years, costing the lives of many millions worldwide, and its aftermath ignited the Second World War, repeating the cycle of redemptive violence on an even grander scale. Unfortunately, society has yet to learn from two recent, major wars – let alone the ancient history of bloodshed in the Bible – but the question begs to be asked: What if this “Christmas Truce” lasted longer than just a few days?

[1] Jo Ann Hackett, “Violence and Women’s Lives in the Book of Judges,” Interpretation 58, no. 4 (2004), 356.

[2] Alice A. Keefe, “Rapes of Women/Wars of Men,” Semeia no. 61 (1993): 92.

[3] Peter Simkins, “The Christmas Truce – A Mutual Curiosity,” PBS, http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/historian/hist_simkins_04_truce.html (accessed October 15, 2010).