Ruth in Recent Research

Abstract

From the early treatments focused on historical-critical methods to the interdisciplinary approaches of the social sciences today, Ruth research continues to speak to the current developments within interpretive conversations. This article briefly surveys major commentaries on Ruth, and then discusses the shifts in research from 2001 to today, highlighting future trajectories and trends.

Keywords

Book of Ruth genre ambiguity desire canon Megilloth reception history feminist interpretation theology migration gender studies widows ethnicity Moabite identity violence

Introduction

‘The more time I have spent with the book, the more convinced I have become that it is exceedingly complex and ambiguous’ (Linafelt 1999: xiii). For those who have spent time in this four-chapter idyllic story, Linafelt’s reflection in his 1999 commentary rings true today. Ruth is a provocative book in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament—deceivingly simple yet incredibly sophisticated. One of only two books in the entire biblical corpus named after a woman (the other being Esther), Ruth encompasses the most feminine dialogue in a complete story along with significant lexical ambiguity. The unique features of the book of Ruth (feminine qualities, female relationship, canonical placements, ambiguity) have created a platform for the employment of Ruth in a variety of biblical research approaches and methods.

The aim of this survey is to map the field of Ruth research through significant commentaries and monographs, and then to chart the growing trends from 2001–2019 (see previously Erickson and Davis 2016). This survey will also highlight topics of interest within particular methods that have been given significant attention in recent research on Ruth.

This article will be organized in four main movements. The first will be a broad sweep of the major commentaries and monographs from the 1950s until now, noting shifts in trends from the traditional historical-critical methodological approaches to a broad range of literary and social science approaches. Second, long-standing critical issues within the field of Ruth research will be addressed—namely, Ruth’s location in the canon(s), genre, Ruth in the Megilloth, and Ruth in Old Testament Theology. The third movement will identify specific foci of noteworthy interest within recent scholarship (e.g., widows, violence, clothes and feet, sex and role play, and borders of ethnicity and identity). Finally, future trajectories for Ruth research will be explored within reception history (film and literature), studies within the social sciences (gender studies, identity, psychoanalytic analysis, clothing), and specialized contextual approaches (migrant, indigenous, Asian and Asian American, and Latino/a/x readings).

Commentaries and Monographs

Early commentaries, though focusing on historical-critical issues and methodologies, engaged in paradigm-shifting questions that have taken new directions in recent years. From early commentaries and monographs, some of the concerns that have been woven throughout diverse treatments approach Ruth as a story about loss, relationship, and ethnic identity. These issues pervade every commentary, though newer approaches engage current interdisciplinary trends, with critical foci concentrated on intercontextual perspectives. Standard commentaries on Ruth, focused on issues of a historical and linguistic nature, with attention to particular themes and theological topics, include Myers (1955), Campbell (1975), Hubbard (1988), Sasson (1995), Bush (1996), Nielsen (1997), and Block (1999). Holmstedt provides a detailed analysis of Ruth with a particular linguistic and grammatical analysis (2010).

Campbell (1975) models the historical-critical focus with a particular emphasis on dating the book of Ruth (950–700 bce) but also with considerable attention to literary, linguistic, and grammatical elements. He challenges the earlier proposal of late features within the text. Several commentaries link this linguistic focus on the dating of the text to the purpose of the text: Myers (1955), Glanzmann (1959), Sasson (1989), Gow (1992), and Wünch (1998). A key area of attention is distinguishing ‘Standard Biblical Hebrew’ and ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’ in order to situate the text in a particular time frame (Bush 1996: 30). Taking a cue from theories that argued later linguistic features were not portrayed in the text, Nielsen argues for the purpose of Ruth’s Moabite ancestry as a defense within the Davidic monarchy (Nielsen 1997: 24-26). Though these issues have dominated much of the early commentaries’ focus, turns toward social science models, with a focus on constructions of identity, social affiliation, and endogamy, also appear in commentaries from the early 1990s onward (Sakenfeld 1999: 4-5; Matthews 2004).

Commentaries focusing on literary approaches to Ruth include Larkin (2000), Nielsen (1997), Linafelt (1999), Driesbach (2012), and Alter (2015). LaCoque focuses on the subversive elements in Ruth (2004) and Linafelt draws out ambiguity within the grammar and syntax, highlighting the subtle irony exemplified in the focus on the women and concluding that the story is ‘perhaps not about some king after all’ (1999: 81). Fentress-Williams posits Ruth as a comedy through a Bakhtinian lens (2012). Matthews demonstrates that Ruth contains strong intertextual motifs, as a ‘miniversion of the Exodus account of the return and exile as envisioned in Isa 40, Jer 32, and Ezek 37’ (2004: 212). Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky offer a new translation and commentary examining the intertextual connections of Ruth in the Hebrew Bible, significant themes and concepts (conversion, redemption, hesed), and interpretations of Ruth from pre-modern rabbinic to contemporary readings (2011: lvi-lxvii).

Volumes with a particular focus on teaching and preaching in congregations include Sakenfeld (1999), Pressler (2002), and Driesbach (2012). Some adopt a theological and canonical focus (e.g., Atkinson 1985). Several commentaries situate Ruth with Judges because of canonical placement in the Protestant tradition (Younger 2002; Phillips 2004; Duguid 2005; Cundall and Morris 2008; Way 2016; Evans 2017; Fowl and Smit 2018). Commentaries including Joshua with Ruth are Harris, Brown and Moore (2000), Pressler (2002), Franke (2005), Walton (2009), Goldingay (2011), Coleson, Stone, and Dreisbach (2012), and Chisholm (2013). Ruth and Esther are often placed together as part of the Megilloth. Some of the commentaries combining these two books include Bush (1996), Linafelt (1999), Larkin (2000), Duguid (2005), Queen-Sutherland (2018), and Taylor (forthcoming).

Signifying a shift from Campbell (1975), the Yale Anchor Bible series introduced a new edition, a second commentary on Ruth by Jeremy Schipper (2016). These two commentaries on Ruth in the Anchor Bible Series exemplify the shift in current trends in Ruth research, from an attempt to secure dating considerations in the text in order to reveal the objectives of the story to a more open discussion that allows for broader and more theologically complex nuances. Demonstrating this shift, Schipper translates from the Masoretic Text and takes into account the interpretive assessments from other traditions in order to ‘explain various choices’ in his particular translation judgments (2016: 4). This fluidity extends into his discussion on genre and dating, resisting a definitive stance but remaining open in dialogue with linguistic data and literary connections. Schipper ‘concentrates on the nature of relationships in Ruth’, and this focus ‘foregrounds the negotiations throughout the book of ability, asymmetrical authority, blessings and their absence, divine activity, ethnicity, exogamy, gender, hesed, household structures, human desires, impoverishment, labor, patriarchy, religious expression, responsibilities of the clan, sexuality, and status, among other topics’ (2016: 29). Schipper works closely with linguistic and literary features, taking into account reception history, with attention to recent discourse within biblical studies on gender, sexual desire, and the ideological dimensions of exogamy. Noting this shift, commentaries in this trajectory include Hawk (2015) and McKeown (2015). Queen-Sutherland includes indigenous readings (2018). Another significant translation and commentary that takes into account the linguistic features of Ruth and argues for it as a late book while also examining issues of exogamy is Alter (2015).

Monographs and collected essays with a feminist approach include the pioneering analyses of Ruth by Trible (1976, 1978) and Fuchs (1999). Kates and Reimer note the significance of reading Ruth as an outsider, as ‘other’ (1994). Alpert (1996) challenges the hetero-normative storyline and illuminates a ‘powerful love’ between Ruth and Naomi. Goss and West offer a reading of Ruth as a queer ancestress (2000). Duncan also offers a queer reading of Ruth and Naomi’s relationship (2000). Essays in Brenner’s Ruth and Esther (1999) use a variety of social science methods and perspectives including archeological and ethnographical perspective (Meyers 1999); indigenous re-readings through a Cherokee and African (Botswana) lens (Donaldson 1999; Dube 1999); and a feminist commentary on the Torah through the story of Ruth (Fischer 1999). Koosed (2011) examines the character of Ruth through a feminist perspective, utilizing gleaning as a lens of metaphor and method, particularly inspired by Agnès Vardes’s 2001 documentary, The Gleaners and I (Koosed 2011: 6). Feminist approaches that utilize insights and concepts from Bakhtin, a Russian literary critic and philosopher, include Pardes (1993) and Aschkenasy (2007).

Fewell and Gunn ‘read Ruth as a novel or short story…from a literary critical perspective’ (1990: 13). Their goal with the characters is to ‘subvert the notion of type’ (1990: 15) as defined by Berlin (1983: 23-42), acknowledging the unique qualities and distinctions of ‘type’, ‘full-fledged characters’, and ‘agents’. In order to subvert expectations of the story through genre signifiers and character types, Fewell and Gunn explore complexities of the characters, comparing them to people in real life. Resisting a simplified, solitary trait analysis such as a loyal person, Fewell and Gunn explore character construction through ‘careful and imaginative gap filling’ (1990: 16). Grossman offers a close literary reading (2015) and Korpel focuses on Ruth’s literary character, along with technical linguistic work (2001). Ziegler offers a somewhat traditional characterization of Ruth and Boaz, coupled with close reading in dialogue with Jewish exegesis (2015). Giles and Doan destabilize traditional readings and present the book of Ruth as a ‘deceptively subversive story about Naomi’ by uncovering traces of an original oral account (2016: x).

Several articles focus on critical themes and motifs in Ruth such as redemption (Adelman 2012; Auld 2018) and moral agency (Fewell 2015). Deuteronomic legalities are highlighted by Kruger (1984). Embry reveals that redemption of property is a key issue in Ruth and illustrates it through an intertextual example from Num. 27.1-11 with Zelophehad’s daughters (2016). Halton draws out the provocative overtones and ambiguity in Ruth 3, making a case that Naomi uses Ruth for sexual entrapment (2012). Agriculture is another key motif, as illustrated by Britt (2004), Koosed (2016), and Snow (2017). Ostriker draws out themes of fertility in Ruth, highlighting the irony that while the story is ‘gynocentyric’, the bookends are ‘androcentric’ (2002: 343).

Long-standing Critical Issues in Ruth Research

Genre

The genre of Ruth is examined in almost every commentary and monograph. Genre analysis regarding Ruth continues to be full of promise, contributing engaging ideas as to the communicative purposes of the community that produced the text and the reception histories and trajectories of the communities receiving it. Genre, as discussed in these works, encompasses both form and function of a text and can aid in determining the purpose of the text (Newsom 2007). According to Hubbard, though not stated explicitly in the text of Ruth, scholars have identified five possible functions of Ruth (Hubbard 1988: 35, n. 18; Matheny 2018: 173):

Ruth as a polemic against Ezra and Nehemiah’s foreign wives’ policy

Ruth as pro-Davidic propaganda.

Ruth as having didactic value for ethical decisions, along with the characters modeling true wisdom.

Ruth as a story for entertainment value alone.

Ruth as the promotion of propaganda in respect to social duty.

Genre designations have included Gunkel’s ‘novella’ (Gunkel 1905), an ‘ancient nursery tale’ (Myers 1955: 42), and folklore (Gottwald 2009: 554-55). Brenner suggests that Ruth’s genre originated from distinct oral tales of Ruth and Naomi that were later fashioned together as a ‘folktale’ or ‘novella’ (1993: 77-81). Sasson designates Ruth as a folktale (1989: 214-15). Nielsen suggests Ruth is a ‘patriarchal narrative’ because of the link to ‘a chain of tails that often end with a genealogy’ (1997: 7). Block identifies it as an ‘independent historiographic short story’ (1999: 603). Scholars that suggest the genre label ‘short story’ include Campbell (1975: 90-92), Hubbard (1988: 47), and Schipper (2016: 16). More recent proposals focus on the literary quality of comedy within Ruth. Trible portrays Ruth as ‘A Human Comedy’ (1982: 161-90). Using a Bakhtinian lens, Fentress-Williams proposes the genre of Ruth as ‘a dialogic comedy’ (2012: 18). Queen-Sutherland recommends a reading strategy of Ruth’s genre as a māšāl (2016: 238). In a discussion of the elastic rhetorical function of genre (see Boer 2007), Matheny (2018) proposes that Ruth functions as a dialogic māšāl. Schipper helpfully suggests, ‘Instead of discussing the single genre of the book of Ruth, one could analyze its use in multiple genres’ (2016: 18; original emphasis). The development of innovative approaches to the conversation on genre designations continues to be a fruitful endeavor in Ruth research.

Location in the Canon(s)

‘Ruth is a travelling text’ (Matheny 2018: 195). In the Christian and Jewish canon lists, Ruth moves about, depending on tradition, liturgical use, and theological/historical intertextual connections. In the LXX, Vulgate, and the Protestant canon, Ruth is placed right after Judges and before Samuel. This placement connects intertextually with the bookends of Ruth in 1.1, and the ending toledot in 4.22 that highlights the birth of David. Lexical and thematic connections between Judges 19–21 and Ruth could indicate later redaction, potentially by a deuteronomistic editor, with a possible chronological significance (Nielsen 1997: 40; Linafelt 1999: xix). Parallels between Judges and Ruth could indicate another possibility. Namely, the one woman judge not specifically involved in bloodshed—Deborah—could parallel the Ruth story, a story set in a time of peace (Schipper 2016: 12).

In the MT, Ruth is placed in the Writings. Ruth’s canonical placement shifts, however, depending on which Hebrew manuscript is considered. In some, Ruth is located directly after Psalms, which makes Ruth the first in the festal scroll list, the Megilloth. This placement could indicate a liturgical significance. In Megilloth lists printed before 1937, Ruth often appears second in the list, reflecting the book’s liturgical use in the Jewish festival calendar (Hubbard 1988: 7). Other lists place Ruth after Proverbs, noting the lexical connection of ’ēšet hayil (‘woman of strength/valor’) (Campbell 1975).

Ruth in the Megilloth

Erickson and Davis (2016) recently surveyed current trends in research on the Megilloth. Ruth is part of the Megilloth collection, the five festal scrolls, in the Jewish canon. There is a Talmudic text, Berakhot 57b, which does not include Ruth but ‘it is not clear why Ruth is left out of this grouping’ (Epstein 1948: 355-56; Erickson and Davis 2016). There has been an increase in publications focused on the Megilloth (see Erickson and Davis 2016). Research has revolved around these key areas: purpose and origin of the grouping of the five scrolls (Stone 2013), intertextual studies, theology of the scrolls—i.e., absence of God, providence, relationality (Davis 2016; Fullerton Strollo 2016; Melton 2018), and intertextual/synchronic studies of Ruth and Esther (Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky 2011; Avnery 2016; Davis 2016). Recent research trends demonstrate a revitalization in concentrated efforts to study the Megilloth as a collection and highlight particular theological topics.

Ruth in Old Testament Theology

Erickson and Davis noted the ‘lack of attention to Ruth in synthetic treatments of Old Testament theology’ (2016: 308). Though they were clear that their list was not ‘scientific or comprehensive’, they listed the citations of Ruth in major treatments of Old Testament theology:

Gerhard von Rad’s two-volume Old Testament Theology (1962–1965) lists 232 references to the book of Exodus and only three to the book of Ruth.

Rolf Rendtorff’s The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (2005) lists 416 references to the book of Exodus and only seven to the book of Ruth.

Horst Dietrich Preuss’s two-volume Old Testament Theology (1991–1992) lists a total of 132 references to the book of Exodus and only six to the book of Ruth.

Walther Eichrodt’s two-volume Theology of the Old Testament (1967) lists 244 references to the book of Exodus and only five to the book of Ruth.

Erhard Gerstenberger’s Theologies of the Old Testament (2002) lists 72 references to the book of Exodus and only six to the book of Ruth.

Finally, in the following works, Ruth does not appear at all in the index of citations: Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (1993); Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (1997); James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (1999); Reinhard Feldmeier and Hermann Spieckermann, God of the Living (2011).

Some recent comprehensive works continue to neglect the use of Ruth in Old Testament theology. For example, Moberly’s Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (2015), includes one reference. Ruth is absent from the Scripture index in Walton’s Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (2017).

Volumes with a significant use of Ruth include the following:

Paul R. House’s Old Testament Theology (1998) lists 13 references to Ruth.

John Goldingay’s three-volume Old Testament Theology (2009) lists a total of 65 references to Ruth.

Bruce K. Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (2007) contains 139 citations of Ruth.

An interest in Ruth’s particular contributions to Old Testament theology has advanced and may possibly increase, as illustrated with the above treatments in House, Goldingay, and Waltke. Lau and Goswell have dedicated an entire monograph to the theology of Ruth, focusing on major themes such as ‘famine’, ‘land’, ‘redemption’, ‘covenant’, and ‘kingship’ (2016: 3).

Emerging Areas of Emphasis in Ruth Research

Women in Ruth

The nature of how Ruth and Orpah were obtained as wives is noted by many scholars. The foreignness of Ruth and Orpah is highlighted immediately in Ruth 1.4, when the men took them as their wives: ‘Then they lifted/carried wives for themselves, Moabites. The name of one was Orpah and the name of the second was Ruth and they dwelled there for ten years’. The verb nāśā’, which means ‘to lift’ or ‘to carry’, has been a source of inquiry for scholars. This is the same verb used at the end of Judges in the scene where the Benjamite men ‘lift’ and ‘carry’ wives for themselves at the festival dance. Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky point out that this term, ‘to lift’, ‘appears in texts dating from the postexilic period, often describing marriages with non-Judean/Israelite women (as in Ruth 1:4)’ (2011: xxx). Viewing its use as more negative, Block contends, ‘Although lexicons tend to treat these expressions as virtually synonymous, closer examination of the latter reveals a phrase loaded with negative connotation. This present idiom occurs only nine times in the Old Testament’ (1999: 628). In line with Block and taking this idea a step further, Queen-Sutherland points out that in connection to the kidnappings in Judg. 21.23, ‘the stigma attached to being Moabite’ along with ‘ancient Israel’s struggle over the question of intermarriage with foreigners’ alerts the reader to this question: ‘Is there foreboding here, and if so, for whom?’ (2018: 51-52). This initial scene introduces the importance in the story of Ruth’s identity as other, as a Moabite, and as a woman.

The three women—Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah—are central figures in the remainder of the story. Their husbands mysteriously die and these widowed women take center stage. Their identity as widows is another important area within Ruth research. Schipper remarks that ‘following these deaths, neither Naomi nor Ruth is ever described as an ’almānâ, a term often translated as widow but more precisely refers to a woman outside of the protection of household or clan’ (2016: 47). Rather, the terms used put them in relationship to their ‘male guardian’, terms such as ‘daughter-in-law’ (1.6-8, 22; 2.20-23; 3.3, 18; 4.15), ‘mother-in-law’ (1.14; 2.11, 18-19, 23; 3.1; 6.16-17), and ‘sister-in-law’ (1.15, two times). The type of widow these women could be termed becomes critical to the discussion. Steinberg notes three types of widows: ’almānâ—a widow with limited economic support, ’iššâ-’almānâ—an inherited widow with sons, and ’ēšet-hammēt (wife of the dead)—an inherited widow without sons (2004: 334). Eunhee Kang (2009) broadens the semantic range of meaning for the ’almānâ beyond mere economic plight. Kang considers the ’almānâ as ‘a widow with property and a widow with a fatherless child and property’ (2009: 86). Similar to Naomi’s situation, she is a widow with a son, but if that son should die before her, the widow will return to a more vulnerable status. Though these women are never described as a specific type of widow, Embry elucidates a possibility by emphasizing the redemption of property in the book. By drawing a parallel with the story of Zelophehad’s daughters in Num. 27.1, Embry shows that the redemption of property is a critical concern in connection to the survival of the widows, Ruth and Naomi (2016: 31-44). Nu (2015) illustrates the negative effects of modern-day interpretation of the levirate practice by the Kachin tribe in Myanmar. Their belief follows the stipulation for a widow to become the obligation of the deceased man’s brother and family. This modern interpretation removes agency from the widow and the man obligated to obtain her. In Nu’s article, the Ruth story is a source of comparison, and she desires a reassessment of this custom to restore agency and rights to the widowed women of Myanmar.

Fields of Violence

Several studies explore the social location of Ruth in a field and its potential for violence. Shepherd intertextually draws out the threat of sexual violence by ‘taking seriously the words of the book itself, “in the days of the Judges”, in which the book of Ruth as we have it situates itself’ (2018: 528-43). For Shepherd, this connection is critical because it highlights Ruth’s vulnerability and status as other. In Ruth 2.8-9, Boaz instructs Ruth to remain in his field, having warned the young men not to touch her. Queen-Sutherland notes that these instructions are an ‘indication that the fields could be a hostile setting for women’ (2018: 88). Nielsen comments that this dialogue reveals that there is ‘presumable fear of sexual attack and the same verb is used in Gen. 20:6, where God in a dream announces to Abimelech that he has protected him from “touching” Sarah’ (1997: 58, n. 90). Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky translate ‘touch’ as ‘molest’ (2011: 35). Schipper translates the term ‘assault’ (2016: 116), and Hawk as ‘harass’ (2015: 80).

Another indicator of potential violence is the supervisor in Ruth 2, according to Fewell and Gunn (1990: 40-44). Grossman proposes that the supervisor purposefully recrafts Ruth’s words from verse 2 in order to place her in an undesirable light (2007). For example, Grossman proposes, ‘The various differences between the boy’s description and Ruth’s words are all related to the supervising boy’s feeling that Ruth gathered grain excessively…and that she must be carefully watched because she gathers too much grain’ (2007: 710). In a similar vein, Koosed writes, ‘The supervisor is certainly not very nice’ and gives a ‘negative and even deceptive portrayal of Ruth’ (2011: 75). Queen-Sutherland notes this threat as well when she comments, ‘Although Boaz has set into place all the right precautions, the threat of violence lurks in the background. Ruth must be attentive to her surroundings, following the female reapers’ (2018: 88). Dagley reveals how the vulnerability of the immigrant woman in modern society, with threats and experiences of ill treatment and sexual abuse, parallels the biblical story of Ruth (2019: 211).

Clothes and Feet: Intentional Ambiguity of Sex and Role Play

‘In chapter 3, the narrative describes what happens on the threshing floor too vaguely to confirm what exactly Boaz and Ruth did that night’ (Schipper 2016: 25). Several articles and monographs focus on the intentional narrative ambiguity of the scene on the threshing floor in Ruth 3. The range of suggestions of what was uncovered varies greatly. Bush writes that the term used for ‘foot’ is rare in Ruth and does not have sexual undertones (1996: 153). Schipper notes that the term is ambiguous and ‘it is unclear which body part Naomi is referring to’ (2016: 143). But some scholars see a reference to Boaz’s genitalia being uncovered because ‘feet’ in the Hebrew Bible can be a euphemism for genitalia (1 Sam. 24.4). Halton heightens the sexual nature and vulnerability of this scene when he writes that it is ‘centered around sexual entrapment using Ruth as bait’ (2012: 32). Frymer-Kensky adds that there are only two possibilities in this scene, either ‘she is uncovering him, or herself’ and the ambiguity may be an intentional ploy by the narrator ‘by not making the scene absolutely clear’ (2002: 248). Lee highlights this scene in relation to the trickster motif in the Hebrew Bible, where women ‘force the man’s hand’ through manipulation because of unjust societal structures (2012: 147). Queen-Sutherland playfully describes this scene: ‘The peek-a-boo show of feet is comical at one turn and frustrating at the next. Do these two roll in the hay or spend a chaste night close without fooling around?’ (2018: 139-40). Focusing on possible narratival purpose, Venter and Minnaar (2013) make the intertextual exegetical connection between Ruth 3.7 and Exod. 4.25-26, paralleling Ruth and Zipporah’s actions. They view these two intentional acts of foreign women as leading to the survival of the families of Israel. In an alternative Asian hermeneutic, Pa (2006) views this scene as one with a negative and oppressive message. In an Asian culture that values submission and obedience to men and mothers-in law, taken to an extreme, this story can devalue a woman’s agency over her own body. Pa’s reading corresponds to Gärtner-Brereton’s reading of this threshing floor scene, and Ruth’s role ‘as a harlot—sent by Naomi’ (2008: 94).

Clothing represents material ambiguity in the threshing floor scene as to the nature of Ruth’s request of Boaz to ‘spread out your wing over your handmaid because you are a redeeming one’ (Ruth 3.9). Berger views this as a move of ‘compassion’ not ‘passion’ in ‘contrast to the seductive act that Naomi envisioned’ (2009a: 443). Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky understand the use of the term, kānāp (wing), to imply marriage, even ‘desexualizing’ what Naomi had previously instructed Ruth to do (2011: 59). Matthews views Ruth’s request for Boaz to ‘spread his cloak’ upon her as ‘to serve as her husband’s legal next of kin’ and in view of Ezek. 16.8 as a ‘symbolic act’ that will serve to provide for Ruth as his wife (2004: 234). Sasson (1995: 81) and Sakenfeld (1999) view the use of this term in connection with Ezekiel as a marriage metaphor. Conversely, the nature of this request could also have sexual overtones according to Fewell and Gunn (1990: 96-97), and Koosed highlights the ambiguous nature of this request: ‘By asking him to spread his wing over her Ruth may be asking him to marry her or inviting him to have sex or both’ (2011: 91). Linafelt, focusing on the meaning of kānāp as ‘extremity’ or ‘extension’, proposes that similar to the euphemism for feet, kānāp could also be ‘a euphemism for male genitalia’ (1999: 55).

Clothing research is an area that is expanding in biblical studies, and topics include how it functions as a material object, as well as psychologically, and what it communicates and symbolizes. Wagstaff highlights the complexities and interrelatedness of clothing, identity construction, and agency when she writes, ‘The intimate entanglement that exists between clothing and people, as well as acknowledging that clothes can restrict or enable people’s power and movement through their own materiality… [suggest] people construct clothing and clothes construct people’ (2017: 71). Clothing in Ruth contributes in part to the ‘construction of Ruth’s identity and the identity she seeks’ (Matheny forthcoming).

Borders of Ethnicity and Identity

Scholarship on Ruth pays increasing attention to ethnicity, identity, and speech—who Ruth is as woman and what she speaks and does not speak about her own identity as a Moabite. The text states several times that Ruth is a Moabite (1.4, 22; 2.2, 6, 21; 4.4, 10). Nielsen (1997) and Fentress-Williams (2012) view the Moabite references as responding to the negative tradition of origins in Gen. 19.30-38 with an alternative portrait. Van Wolde (1997a), Korpel (2001), and LaCocque (2005) highlight the critical assessment in the biblical corpus of Moabite women marrying Israelite men (e.g., Num. 25.1-5; 1 Kgs 11.1-2; Ezra 9.1-2). It is worth noting that Ruth never refers to herself as a Moabite and the ‘only possible reference she makes to her ethnicity occurs in 2:10 when she tells Boaz she is a “foreign woman”’ (Schipper 2016: 43-44). She ‘epitomizes the Moabite in the book of Ruth as not simply a foreigner but kin who has become foreign through ten generations since the time of Isaac and Lot’ (Schipper 2016: 43-44). Linafelt draws out the question of belonging, along with identity (1999: 60-61). The issue of identity and belonging is interwoven. Queen-Sutherland writes,

The question is an important one and a key to understanding the role of identity in the story. In total, the question of Ruth’s identity is posed three times: first as Boaz asks, ‘to whom does this worker-girl belong?’ (Ruth 2:5), then to the woman he finds beside him on the threshing floor (3:9), and now by Naomi when Ruth returns to her. (2018: 129)

Identity pervades this story, as the woman Ruth is also called ‘my daughter’ by Naomi (Ruth 2.2) and Boaz describes her as a ‘young girl/maiden’. In her meeting with Boaz, Ruth calls herself a foreigner and later a maidservant (2.13). Identity shifts continually as Ruth is identified as a ‘Moabite’, ‘wife of the dead’ (Ruth 4.5), ‘daughter’ (3.11), ‘woman of valor’ (3.11), the ‘wife of Boaz’ (4.10), and ‘better than seven sons’ (4.15).

Scholarly analysis revolves around examining Ruth’s rejection or assimilation within Israel. Honig, through integration dynamics, emphasizes the loss and trauma Ruth experiences due to separation from her people and place (1999). Siquans underlines Ruth’s struggle for legal rights as a poor and foreign woman, and she argues that the phrase ‘wife of the dead’ is attributed to Ruth and this enables a possibility for Ruth to obtain ‘legal status’ through a levirate marriage, according to ‘Deuteronomic law’ (2009: 450). The continual reminder that Ruth is a Moabite, coupled with Naomi’s marginalization of Ruth through silence in the last chapter, reveals that Ruth will not be finally identified as a woman, a daughter-in-law, a widow, or as a Moabite (Matheny 2018: 239). Upon returning to Naomi, Ruth alters how she describes the workers (2.21) and Levine asserts that redemption is to be found ‘through separation, deception, and trickery’ (1992: 83). Carroll reads the character of Ruth as ‘among them, appreciated by them, but still not one of them’ (2015: 187; emphasis original). Ruth’s identity remains complex and continues to be an important topic in Ruth research.

Future Trajectories

Reception History

‘Because Ruth has continued to live outside her narrative, readings of her are well informed by her afterlives in literature, art, film, and liturgy’ (Koosed 2011: 6). Ruth research in reception history continues to be a growing area within monographs, commentaries, and articles and shows promise for future development. Koosed (2011) and Powell (2018) show Ruth’s use in literature, such as Fannie Flagg’s 1987 novel, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café. Koosed highlights the use of Ruth’s passionate speech to Naomi and ‘relationships that cross boundaries’ (2011: 56). ‘The book of Ruth is the narrative frame’ for Israeli director, Amos Gitaï’s 1991 French film, Golem: The Spirit of Exile (Koosed 2011: 129). Powell, employing language from Shelly Rambo, argues that the circumscribed presence of queer love in the book of Ruth, conspicuously mirrored in Gitaï’s cinematic portrayal of the biblical story, is symptomatic of experiences of melancholia (ethnic and sexual) among Israel’s returnees (2018). Exum illustrates the afterlives of Ruth in art using Philip Hermogenes Calderon’s painting, Ruth and Naomi, to show the complicated relationship among Boaz, Naomi, and Ruth, exemplified in the ‘dual identifications of the embracing couple as Ruth and Naomi and Ruth and Boaz’ and how the book of Ruth is ‘transformed through cultural appropriation’ (Exum 1996: 133, 136). Lyonhart and Matheny (forthcoming) demonstrate the parallels with Guillermo del Toro’s film, The Shape of Water (2017), reflecting on the use of ‘multiple Ruths, whether human or Monster’ and demonstrating how ‘Ruth’s narrative illustrates multiple aspects of this otherness, including ethnic identity, sexual ambiguity, violence, vulnerability, voiceless-ness, dangerous hospitality, and sacrifice’. Reception history continues to be valuable in communicating the diverse and creative ways Ruth has been appropriated across the disciplines.

Social Science Approaches

Social science approaches (e.g., gender, identity, psychoanalytic, and clothing studies) continue to be a flourishing area within Ruth research and show promise for expansion. Specifically, as noted above, clothing research has been an expanding area in biblical studies, as evidenced in new research groups formed at the SBL Pacific Northwest Regional Meeting during the past five years, which has now produced a volume (Finitsis 2019). Research varies from archaeological materiality to social scientific inquiries to ethnographic study. Wagstaff notes that the relationship between persons and clothing is ‘more complex than has often been assumed in biblical scholarship’ (2017: 16). Matheny (forthcoming) illustrates that the use of clothing in Ruth provides connections of ‘intertextual dialogue with Tamar (Gen. 38)’, also revealing how ‘women’s bodies represent society and desired outcomes’ and can also elicit disastrous results of ‘violence, alienation, rejection, and abuse’.

Reading desire in Ruth is another developing area in Ruth research. Desire encompasses sexual desire and also narrative desire. Schipper (2016) rightly points out that ‘none of the characters in Ruth ever express sexual preferences explicitly’ but he continues to highlight the ways in which gaps and ambiguity are addressed by interpreters. Interpretations of sexual desire have been an interest in Ruth research from early rabbinic readings and have continued to develop (2016: 35). Though not explicit within the text, the sexual ambiguity in Ruth has been noted by several scholars (Hubbard 1988; Linafelt 1999; Koosed 2011; Fentress-Williams 2012; Hawk 2015; McKoewn 2015; Powell 2018). Several scholars have written about heterosexual attraction between Boaz and Ruth, including Fewell and Gunn (1990) and Linafelt (1999). Those leaning towards more romantic readings are Hubbard (1988) and Bush (1996). Queer readings have interpreted areas of ambiguity within relations of sexual desire to illustrate homosexual desire (West 2006) and bisexual desire (Duncan 2000). Many of these interpretations center around the use of dābaq in Ruth 1.14 (‘to cling’) and its intertextual use in Gen. 2.24 in reference to a man and woman clinging in a marital context.

Narrative desire broadens questions of sexuality and brings into the conversation the identity of the readers. Powell helpfully articulates the complex affiliation between narrative and desire as that which ‘encompasses the broad affective, cultural, ideological, and psychological investments of both writers and readers… [and] encompasses methodologies from the disciplines of narratology, psychoanalytic theory, feminist theory, philosophical studies, and queer theory’ (2018: 31). Utilizing the work of Freud (principles of pleasure and pain; conflict between Thanatos and Eros), Lacan (jouissance; stade du miroir), and Kristeva (sémiotique; abjection; hermeneutic for the margins), Powell explores intersubjective relationship desires between the characters in Ruth and the interpreters engaging with the text (2018).

Specialized Contextual Approaches

Ruth research in specialized contextual approaches (e.g., migrant, indigenous, Asian, Asian American, Latino/a/x readings) is one of the primary areas of the engagement of ethics within Ruth research and more should be done in the future. Sun remarks that Ruth is ‘one of the most frequent characters to be examined through an Asian American lens’ (2019: 243). Positive indigenous readings of Orpah appear within a Cherokee social location (Donaldson 1999) and an African (Botswana) lens (Dube 1999). Scholars such as Pa (2006) have examined messages of obedience and oppression. Nu re-evaluates and challenges patriarchal models through the work of rereading the effects of these repressive trajectories (2015).

The theme of migration and immigration within the Hebrew Bible is noted by several scholars such as Nayap-Pot (1999), Ruiz (2011), De La Torre (2011), Gallagher (2013), Carroll (2012, 2017), and Dagley (2019). Carroll reads Ruth alongside the issues of ‘first-generation immigrants into the host culture’, highlighting themes and tensions of ‘boundaries’, ‘ethnicity’, and ‘assimilation’ (2015: 185). Dagley contextualizes Ruth alongside the experience of women migrants, mainly Mexican women (2019: 2-3). These experiences of women migrants entail ‘motivation for migration’, ‘social networks’, the ‘danger of sexual abuse and violence’, and ‘negotiation of gender ideologies’ (2019: vi).

References

Adelman

(ed.) 2012 Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies and Gender Issues 23 (Indiana: Indiana University Press).

Alpert

1996 ‘Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth’, in Kates

J.A.

Reimer

G.T.

(eds.), Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (New York: Ballantine) 91-96.

Alter

1992 The World of Biblical Literature (London: SPCK).

Alter

2015 Strong as Death Is Love: The Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel (New York: W.W. Norton and Company).

Anderson

A.A.

1978 ‘The Marriage of Ruth’, JSS 23.2: 171-83.

Aschkenasy

2006 ‘The Book of Ruth as Comedy: Classical and Modern Perspectives’, in Hawkins

P.S.

Stahlberg

L.C.

(eds.), Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs (New York: Fordham University Press) 31-44.

Aschkenasy

2007 ‘Reading Ruth through a Bakhtinian Lens: The Carnivalesque in a Biblical Tale’, JBL 126: 437-53.

Atkinson

1985 The Wings of Refuge: The Message of Ruth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

Auld

A.G.

2018 ‘Ruth: A Reading of Scripture?’, in Morgan

D.F.

(ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Writings of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press) 215-28.

10.

Avnery

2016 ‘Ruth and Esther: A Journey through Gender, Ethnicity, and Identity’, in Erickson

Embry

B.J.

(eds.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 43-71.

11.

Barr

1999 The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (London: SCM Press).

12.

Baylis

C.P.

2004 ‘Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant’, BSac 161: 413-31.

13.

Beattie

D.R.G.

1974 ‘The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice’, VT 24.3: 251-67.

14.

Beattie

D.R.G.

1978 ‘Ruth III’, JSOT 5: 39-48.

15.

Beattie

D.R.G.

1994 The Targum of Ruth (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).

16.

Beattie

D.R.G.

1997 Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press).

17.

Beattie

D.R.G.

1999 ‘Ruth, Book of’, in Hayes

J.H.

(ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon) 2:426-28.

18.

Bellis

2007 Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2nd edn).

19.

Berger

2009a ‘Ruth and the David-Bathsheba Story: Allusions and Contrasts’, JSOT 33.4: 433-52.

20.

Berger

2009b ‘Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25’, JBL 128.2: 253-72.

21.

Berlin

1983 Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature, 9; Sheffield: Almond).

22.

Bernstein

M.J.

1991 ‘Two Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative’, JSOT 50: 15-26.

23.

Berquist

J.L.

1993 ‘Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 57: 23-37.

24.

Bertman

1965 ‘Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth’, JBL 84: 165-68.

25.

Bledstein

A.J.

1993 ‘Female Companionships: If the Book Were Written by a Woman…’, in Brenner (ed.) 1993: 116-33.

26.

Block

D.I.

1999 Judges, Ruth (New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman).

27.

Blotz

J.W.

2005 ‘Bitterness and Friendship: A Feminist Exegesis of the Book of Ruth’, Currents in Theology and Mission 32: 47-54.

28.

Boda

Schwab

2012 Judges, Ruth (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

29.

Boer

(ed.) 2007 Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies (SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).

30.

Bovell

2003 ‘Symmetry, Ruth and Canon’, JSOT 28.2: 175-91.

31.

Brenner

1983 ‘Naomi and Ruth’, VT 33.4: 385-97.

32.

Brenner

1993 ‘Naomi and Ruth’, in Brenner (ed.) 1993: 77-81.

33.

Brenner

1999 ‘Ruth as a Foreign Worker and the Politics of Exogamy’, in Brenner (ed.) 1999: 158-62.

34.

Brenner

2005 I Am: Biblical Women Tell Their Own Stories (Minneapolis: Fortress).

35.

Brenner

(ed.) 1993 A Feminist Companion to Ruth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

36.

Brenner

(ed.) 1999 Ruth and Esther (FCB, 2/3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

37.

Brenner

van Henten

J.W.

(eds.) 1999 Food and Drink in the Biblical World (Semeia, 86; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).

38.

Britt

2004 ‘Death, Social Conflict, and the Barley Harvest in the Hebrew Bible’, Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5: 1-28.

39.

Britt

2009 ‘Sacrifice and the Displacement of Mothers in the Book of Ruth and Coetzee’s Disgrace’, in Kirk-Duggan

C.A.

Pippin

(eds.), Mother Goose, Mother Jones, and Mommie Dearest: Biblical Mothers and Their Children (SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 37-49.

40.

Bronner

L.L.

1993 ‘A Thematic Approach to Ruth in Rabbinic Literature’, in Brenner (ed.) 1993: 146-69.

41.

Bronstein

(ed.) 1982 A Passover Haggadah: The New Union Haggadah Prepared by the Central Conference of American Rabbis (New York: Viking, rev. edn).

42.

Brueggemann

1997 Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis: Fortress).

43.

Bush

F.W.

1996 Ruth, Esther (WBC, 9; Dallas: Word).

44.

Campbell

E.F.

Jr.

1975 Ruth (AB, 7; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

45.

Campbell

E.F.

Jr.

1990 ‘Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Hesed and Change’, Austin Seminary Bulletin 105: 64-74.

46.

Carroll

R. M.D

. 2012 ‘Reading the Bible through Other Lenses: New Vistas from a Hispanic Diaspora Perspective’, in Keener

C.S.

Carroll

M.D. R

. (eds.), Global Voices: Reading the Bible in the Majority World (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson) 5-26.

47.

Carroll

R. M.D

. 2015 ‘Once a Stranger, Always a Stranger? Immigration, Assimilation, and the Book of Ruth’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 39: 185-88.

48.

Carroll

R. M.D

. 2017 ‘Latino/Latina Biblical Interpretation’, in Gorman

(ed.), Scripture and Its Interpretation: A Global, Ecumenical Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic) 311-23.

49.

Childs

1979 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress).

50.

Childs

1993 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress).

51.

Chisholm

R.B.

2013 A Commentary on Judges and Ruth (Grand Rapids: Kregel).

52.

Coleson

Stone

Driesbach

2012 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House).

53.

Coxon

P.W.

1989 ‘Was Naomi a Scold?’, JSOT 45: 25-37.

54.

Cundall

Morris

2008 Judges and Ruth (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic).

55.

Dagley

K.D.

2019 ‘Women’s Experience of Migration and the Book of Ruth’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary).

56.

Davies

E.W.

1983 ‘Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the Gōʾēl’, VT 33.2: 231-34.

57.

Davis

2016 ‘Ruth and Esther as the Thematic Frame of the Megilloth’, in Erickson

Embry

(eds.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 7-19.

58.

Davis

E.F.

2003 Who Are You, My Daughter? Reading Ruth through Image and Text (Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

59.

De La Torre

M.A.

2011 Genesis (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

60.

De Waard

Eugene

A.N.

1973 A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth (Helps for Translators, 15; London: United Bible Societies).

61.

Donaldson

L.E.

1999 ‘The Sign of Orpah: Reading Ruth through Native Eyes’, in Brenner

(ed.), Ruth and Esther (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

62.

Driesbach

2012 Ruth (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, 3; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House).

63.

Dube

M.W.

1999 ‘The Unpublished Letters of Orpah to Ruth’, in Brenner (ed.) 1999: 145-57.

64.

Dube

M.W.

2001 ‘Divining Ruth for International Relations’, in Adam

A.K.M.

(ed.), Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader (St. Louis: Chalice) 67-80.

65.

Duguid

I.M.

2005 Esther and Ruth (Reformed Expository Commentary; Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R).

66.

Duncan

C.M.

2000 ‘The Book of Ruth: On Boundaries, Love, and Truth’, in Goss

R.E.

West

(eds.), Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible (Cleveland: Pilgrim) 92-102.

67.

Eichrodt

1967 Theology of the Old Testament (OTL; 2 vols.; trans. Baker

J.A.

; Philadelphia: Westminster).

68.

Embry

(ed.) 2016 Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 78; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix).

69.

Epstein

(ed.) 1948 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Zera’im (London: Soncino Press).

70.

Erickson

Davis

A.R.

2016 ‘Recent Research on the Megilloth (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther)’, CBR 14.3: 298-318.

71.

Eskenazi

T.C.

Frymer-Kensky

2011 Ruth (Jewish Publication Society Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society).

72.

Evans

M.J.

2017 Judges and Ruth (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic).

73.

Exum

J.C.

1996 Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women (JSOTSup, 215; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

74.

Feldmeier

Spieckermann

2011 God of the Living: A Biblical Theology (Waco, TX: Baylor University).

75.

Fentress-Williams

2012 Ruth (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary; Nashville: Abingdon).

76.

Fewell

D.N.

2015 ‘Space for Moral Agency in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 40.1: 79-96.

77.

Fewell

D.N.

Gunn

D.M.

1989a ‘Boaz, Pillar of Society: Measures of Worth in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 45: 45-59.

78.

Fewell

D.N.

Gunn

D.M.

1989b ‘Is Coxon a Scold? On Responding to the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 45: 39-43.

79.

Fewell

D.N.

Gunn

D.M.

1990 Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

80.

Fewell

D.N.

Gunn

D.M.

1999 ‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth’, in Bach

(ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (New York: Routledge) 233-39.

81.

Finitsis

(ed.) 2019 Dress and Clothing in the Hebrew Bible: ‘For All Her Household Are Clothed in Crimson’ (LHBOTS, 679; New York: T&T Clark).

82.

Fisch

1982 ‘Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History’, VT 32.4: 425-37.

83.

Fischer

2007 ‘The Book of Ruth as Exegetical Literature’, European Judaism 40.2: 140-49.

84.

Fischer

1999 ‘The Book of Ruth: A “Feminist” Commentary to the Torah?’, in Brenner (ed.) 1999: 23-49.

85.

Flagg

1987 Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café (New York: Ballantine).

86.

Fowl

Smit

2018 Judges and Ruth (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rapids: Baker).

87.

Franke

J.R.

2005 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

88.

Frymer-Kensky

2002 Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken).

89.

Fuchs

1999 ‘Status and Role of Female Heroines in the Biblical Narrative’, in Bach

(ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (New York: Routledge) 77-84.

90.

Fullerton Strollo

. 2016 ‘Initiative and Agency: Towards a Theology of the Megilloth’, in Erickson

Embry

(eds.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 150-60.

91.

Gallagher

S.D.

2013 ‘Blessing on the Move: The Outpouring of God’s Blessing through the Migrant Abraham’, Mission Studies 30.2: 147-61.

92.

Gärtner-Brereton

2008 The Ontology of Space in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (London: Equinox).

93.

Gerstenberger

2002 Theologies of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress).

94.

Giles

Doan

W.J.

2016 The Story of Naomi—The Book of Ruth: From Gender to Politics (Biblical Performance Criticism; Eugene, OR: Cascade).

95.

Gitaï

(director) 1991 Golem: The Spirit of Exile (Chicago: Facets Video).

96.

Glanzmann

1959 ‘The Origin and Date of the Book of Ruth’, CBQ 21: 201-207.

97.

Glover

2009 ‘Your People, My People: An Exploration of Ethnicity in Ruth’, JSOT 33.3: 293-313.

98.

Goldingay

2009 Old Testament Theology (3 vols.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

99.

Goldingay

2011 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (The OT for Everyone Series; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

100.

Gonda

2007 ‘Lesbian Feminist Criticism’, in Plain

Sellers

(eds.), A History of Feminist Literary Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 169-86.

101.

Goss

West

(eds.) 2000 Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible (Cleveland: Pilgrim).

102.

Gottwald

2009 The Hebrew Bible: A Brief Socio-Literary Introduction (Minneapolis: Augsburg).

103.

Goulder

M.D.

1993 ‘Ruth: A Homily on Deuteronomy 22–25?’, in McKay

H.A.

Clines

D.J.A.

(eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSup, 162; Sheffield: JSOT Press) 307-19.

104.

Gow

M.D.

1992 ‘Ruth’, in Vanhoozer

K.J.

(ed.), Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic) 102-10.

105.

Grant

1991 ‘Literary Structure in the Book of Ruth’, BSac 148: 424-41.

106.

Gray

1986 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (repr.; New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

107.

Green

1980 ‘A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Theological Union).

108.

Green

1982 ‘The Plot of the Biblical Story of Ruth’, JSOT 23: 55-68.

109.

Green

1992 What Are the Targums? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical).

110.

Grossman

2007 ‘“Gleaning among the Ears”—“Gathering among the Sheaves”: Characterizing the Image of the Supervising Boy (Ruth 2)’, JBL 126.4: 703-16.

111.

Grossman

2015 Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries (Das Alte Testament im Dialog/An Outline of an Old Testament in Dialogue; Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang).

112.

Gunkel

1905 ‘Ruth’, Deutsche Rundschau 32: 50-69.

113.

Hals

R.M.

1969 The Theology of the Book of Ruth (Facet Books; Philadelphia: Fortress).

114.

Halton

2012 ‘An Indecent Proposal: The Theological Core of the Book of Ruth’, SJOT 26: 30-43.

115.

Hamilton

1988 The Book of Ruth (New York: Doubleday).

116.

Harris

J.G.

Brown

C.A.

Moore

2000 Judges, Ruth (New International Biblical Commentary Old Testament, 5; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

117.

Harris

J.G.

Brown

C.A.

Moore

2012 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Understanding the Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Baker).

118.

Hawk

L.D.

2015 Ruth (Apollos Old Testament Commentary; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

119.

Hawkins

P.S.

Stahlberg

L.C.

(eds.) 2006 Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs (New York: Fordham University Press).

120.

Holmstedt

R.D.

2010 Ruth: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press).

121.

Honig

1999 ‘Ruth, the Model Emigrée: Mourning and the Symbolic Politics of Immigration’, in Brenner (ed.) 1999: 50-74.

122.

House

P.R.

1998 Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic).

123.

Hubbard

R.L.

Jr.

1988 The Book of Ruth (New International Commentary on the Old Testament; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

124.

Hubbard

R.L.

1989 ‘Theological Reflections on Naomi’s Shrewdness’, TynBul 40: 283-92.

125.

Hyman

R.T.

1984 ‘Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39: 189-201.

126.

Kang

2009 ‘The Dialogic Significance of the Sojourner, the Fatherless, and the Widow in Deuteronomy through an Analysis of Chronotope Using Bakhtin’s Reading Strategy’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Theological Union).

127.

Kates

J.A.

1994 ‘Women at the Center: Ruth and Shavuot’, in Kates

J.A.

Reimer

G.T.

(eds.), Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (New York: Ballantine) 187-210.

128.

Keita

Dyk

2006 ‘The Scene at the Threshing Floor: Suggestive Readings and Intercultural Considerations on Ruth 3’, The Bible Translator 57: 17-32.

129.

Kates

J.A.

Reimer

G.T.

(eds.) 1994 Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (New York: Ballantine).

130.

Koosed

J.L.

2011 Gleaning Ruth: A Biblical Heroine and Her Afterlives (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press).

131.

Koosed

J.L.

2016 ‘Sustenance and Survival in Biblical Narrative’, in Koosed

Fewell

D.N.

(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 489-97.

132.

Korpel

M.C.A.

2001 The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum).

133.

Korpel

M.C.A.

2003 ‘Theodicy in the Book of Ruth’, in Laato

et al. (eds.), Theodicy in the World of the Bible (Leiden: Brill) 334-50.

134.

Kruger

1984 ‘The Hem of the Garment in Marriage: The Meaning of the Symbolic Gesture in Ruth 3:9 and Ezek. 16:8’, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 12: 79-86.

135.

LaCocque

2004 Ruth (Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress).

136.

LaCocque

2005 The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition (repr.; Overtures to Biblical Theology; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock).

137.

LaCocque

2006 ‘Subverting the Biblical World: Sociology and Politics in the Book of Ruth’, in Hawkins

et al. (eds.), Scrolls of Love: Ruth and Song of Songs (New York: Fordham) 20-30.

138.

Landy

Francis

1994 ‘Ruth and the Romance of Realism, or Deconstructing History’, JAAR 62: 285-317.

139.

Larkin

K.J.

2000 Ruth and Esther (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

140.

Lau

Goswell

2016 Unceasing Kindness: A Biblical Theology of Ruth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

141.

Lee

E.P.

2012 ‘Ruth’, in Newsom

Ringe

Lapsley

(eds.), Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 142-49.

142.

Leggett

D.A.

1974 The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Attention to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack).

143.

Levine

A.-J.

1992 ‘Ruth’, in Newsom

C.A.

Ringe

S.H.

(eds.), The Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 78-84.

144.

Levine

. 1973 The Aramaic Version of Ruth (Analecta biblica, 58; Rome: Biblical Institute Press).

145.

Linafelt

1999 ‘Ruth’, in Linafelt

Beal

T.K.

(eds.), Ruth and Esther (Berit Olam; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical) xi-90.

146.

Lyonhart

Matheny

forthcoming ‘The Biblical Narrative of Ruth and the Monstrous Other’, in Ballas

(ed.), Cinema and Liberation Theology (New York: Routledge).

147.

Magonet

1997 ‘Rabbinic Readings of Ruth’, European Judaism 40: 150-57.

148.

Maldonado

1995 ‘Reading Malinche Reading Ruth: Toward a Hermeneutics of Betrayal’, Semeia 72: 91-109.

149.

Masenya

M.J.

1998 ‘“Ngwetši” (Bride): The Naomi-Ruth Story from an African–South African Woman’s Perspective’, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 14.2: 81-90.

150.

Matheny

2018 ‘Judges 19–21 and Ruth: Canon as a Voice of Answerability’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kent).

151.

Matheny

In Progress ‘Tamar and Ruth: Dress as (Mis) Communication and Inheritance Negotiation’ in Finitsis

(ed.), Dress and Clothing in the Hebrew Bible (paper delivered at the regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature Research Group on Dress and Clothing in Ellensberg, WA, 2019).

152.

Matthews

V.H.

2004 Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

153.

McKeown

2015 Ruth (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Cambridge, MA: Eerdmans).

154.

Melton

2018 Where Is God in the Megilloth?: A Dialogue on the Ambiguity of Divine Presence and Absence (Old Testament Studies; Leiden: Brill).

155.

Merrill

E.H.

1985 ‘The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes’, BSac 142: 130-42.

156.

Meyers

1988 In Search of Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford University Press).

157.

Meyers

1992 ‘Everyday Life: Women in the Period of the Hebrew Bible’, in Newsom

C.A.

Ringe

S.H.

(eds.), The Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 244-51.

158.

Meyers

1999 ‘Returning Home: Ruth 1.8 and the Gendering of the Book of Ruth’, in Brenner (ed.) 1999: 85-114.

159.

Meyers

2002 ‘Having Their Space and Eating There Too: Bread Production and Female Power in Ancient Israelite Households’, Nashim 5: 14-44.

160.

Meyers

2003 ‘Where the Girls Are: Archaeology and Women’s Lives in Ancient Israel’, in Moreland

M.C.

(ed.), In Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology in Biblical Studies Teaching (Boston: Brill) 31-51.

161.

Miller-McLemore

B.J.

1991 ‘Returning to the “Mother’s House”: A Feminist Look at Orpah’, Christian Century 108.1: 428-30.

162.

Moberly

2015 Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).

163.

Moore

M.S.

2000 ‘Ruth’, in Gordon

Harris Brown

C.A.

Moore

M.S.

(eds.), Joshua, Judges, Ruth (New International Biblical Commentary Old Testament Series, 5; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson) 293-373.

164.

Morris

1968 ‘Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary’, in Cundall

A.E.

Morris

(eds.), Judges and Ruth (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity) 217-318.

165.

Myers

J.M.

1955 The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth (Leiden: Brill).

166.

Nayap-Pot

1999 ‘Life in the Midst of Death: Naomi, Ruth, and the Plight of Indigenous Women’, in Sugirtharajah

R.S.

(ed.), Vernacular Hermeneutics (The Bible and Postcolonialism, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 52-65.

167.

Neusner

1993 The Mother of the Messiah in Judaism: The Book of Ruth (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International).

168.

Newsom

C.A.

2007 ‘Spying out the Land’, in Boer

(ed.), Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies (SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 19-30.

169.

Newsom

C.A.

Ringe

S.H.

(eds.) 1992 The Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

170.

Niditch

1996 Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

171.

Nielsen

1997 Ruth (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

172.

2015 ‘A Reinterpretation of Levirate Marriage in Ruth 4:1-12 for Kachin Society’, in Havea

Lau

P.H.W.

(eds.), Reading Ruth in Asia (International Voices in Biblical Studies, 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 57-72.

173.

Ostriker

2002 ‘The Book of Ruth and the Love of the Land’, BibInt 10: 343-58.

174.

A.M.S.

2006 ‘Reading Ruth 3:1-5 from an Asian Woman’s Perspective’, in Day

Pressler

(eds.), Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 47-59.

175.

Pardes

1993 The Book of Ruth: Countertraditions in the Bible—A Feminist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

176.

Phillips

G.W.

2004 Judges, Ruth (Holman Old Testament Commentary; Nashville: Broadman and Holman).

177.

Powell

S.D.

2018 Narrative Desire and the Book of Ruth (New York: Bloomsbury).

178.

Pressler

2002 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Westminster Bible Commentary; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

179.

Preuss

H.D.

1991–92 Old Testament Theology (OTL; 2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

180.

Prinsloo

W.S.

1980 ‘The Theology of the Book of Ruth’, VT 30: 330-41.

181.

Queen-Sutherland

2016 ‘Ruth, Qoheleth, and Esther: Counter Voices from the Megilloth’, Perspectives in Religious Studies 43: 227-42.

182.

Queen-Sutherland

2018 Ruth and Esther (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary, 13A; Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys).

183.

Rabinowitz

(trans.) 1983 ‘Ruth’, in Freedman

E.H.

Simon

(eds.), Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino) 8:1-94.

184.

Rashkow

1993 ‘Ruth: The Discourse of Power and the Power of Discourse’, in Brenner (ed.) 1993: 26-41.

185.

Rendtorff

2005 The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (trans. Orton

D.E.

; Leiden: Deo).

186.

Rossow

F.C.

1991 ‘Literary Artistry in the Book of Ruth and Its Theological Significance’, Concordia Journal 17.1: 112-19.

187.

Ruiz

J.-P.

2011 Reading from the Edges: The Bible and People on the Move (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis).

188.

Sakenfeld

K.D.

1999 Ruth (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

189.

Sakenfeld

K.D.

2002 ‘Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the Wife of Uriah: The Company Mary Keeps in Matthew’s Gospel’, in Gaventa

B.R.

Rigby

C.L.

(eds.), Blessed One: Protestant Perspectives on Mary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 21-31.

190.

Sakenfeld

K.D.

2003 Just Wives: Stories of Power and Survival in the Old Testament and Today (Louisville: Westminster John Knox).

191.

Sandoval

T.J.

2018 ‘Latino/a/x Biblical Interpretation Related to the Hebrew Bible’, CBR 16: 236-62.

192.

Sasson

J.M.

1978 ‘The Issue of Geʾullāh in Ruth’, JSOT 5: 52-64.

193.

Sasson

J.M.

1989 Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folkloric Interpretation (Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).

194.

Sasson

J.M.

1995 Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (Biblical Seminar, 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2nd edn).

195.

Saxegaard

K.M.

2010 Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth (FAT, 2/47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

196.

Schipper

2016 Ruth (Yale Anchor Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press).

197.

Segovia

2014 ‘Introduction: Approaching Latino/a Biblical Criticisms: A Trajectory of Visions and Missions’, in Lozada

Jr. Segovia

(eds.), Latino/a Biblical Hermeneutics: Problematics, Objectives, Strategies (Atlanta: SBL) 1-39.

198.

Shepherd

D.J.

2018 ‘Ruth in the Days of Judges: Women, Foreigners and Violence’, BibInt 26.4-5: 528-43.

199.

Siquans

2009 ‘Foreignness and Poverty in the Book of Ruth: A Legal Way for a Poor Foreign Woman to Be Integrated into Israel’, JBL 128: 443-52.

200.

Snow

2017 ‘Agricultural Dimensions of the Book of Ruth’ (Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America).

201.

Steinberg

2004 ‘Romancing the Widow: Economic Distinctions between the “ALMANA”, the “ISSA-ALMANA” and the “ESSET-Hammet”’, in Ellens

(ed.), God’s Word for Our World (London: T&T Clark) 1:327-46.

202.

Stone

2001 ‘Queer Commentary and Biblical Interpretation: An Introduction’, in Stone

(ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible (Cleveland: Pilgrim) 11-34.

203.

Stone

T.J.

2013 The Compilational History of the Megilloth (Göttingen: Mohr Siebeck).

204.

Strollo

M.F.

2016 ‘Initiative and Agency: Towards a Theology of the Megilloth’, in Embry

(ed.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship (Hebrew Bible Monographs, 78; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix) 150-60.

205.

Sun

2019 ‘Recent Research on Asian and Asian American Hermeneutics Related to the Hebrew Bible’, CBR 17: 238-65.

206.

Sutskover

2010 ‘The Themes of Land and Fertility in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 34.3: 283-94.

207.

Taylor

forthcoming Ruth/Esther (Story of God Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

208.

Thomas

N.J.

2002 ‘Weaving the Words: The Book of Ruth as Missiologically Effective Communication’, Missiology: An International Review 30.2: 155-69.

209.

Thompson

1968 ‘Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth’, VT 18.1: 79-99.

210.

Tiessen

2010 ‘A Theology of Ruth: The Dialectic of Countertestimony and Core Testimony’, Direction 39.2: 255-64.

211.

Trible

1976 ‘Two Women in a Man’s World’, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal 53.3: 251-79.

212.

Trible

1978 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress).

213.

Trible

1982 ‘A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth’, in Gros Louis

K.R.R.

Ackerman

J.S.

(eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives Volume II (Nashville: Abingdon) 161-90.

214.

Trible

1984 Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress).

215.

Trible

2000a ‘Ruth’, in Meyers

(ed.), Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 146-47.

216.

Trible

2000b ‘Orpah’, in Meyers

(ed.), Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 133-34.

217.

van Wolde

. 1997a Ruth and Naomi (London: SCM Press).

218.

van Wolde

. 1997b ‘Texts in Dialogue with Other Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives’, BibInt 5.1: 1-28.

219.

Venter

Minnaar

2013 ‘Rut Wat Boas Se “Voete” Oopgemaak en by Hom Gaan le Het: Die Betekenis van Hierdie Simboliese Aksie in Rut 3:7 in Die Lig Van Eksodus 4:25’, Verbum et Ecclesia 34: 108-11.

220.

von Rad

1962–65 Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper).

221.

Wagstaff

B.J.

2017 ‘Redressing Clothing in the Hebrew Bible: Material-Cultural Approaches’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Exeter).

222.

Waltke

B.K.

2007 An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

223.

Walton

2009 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1, 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Background Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

224.

Walton

2017 Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).

225.

Way

K.C.

2016 Judges and Ruth (Teach the Text Commentary Series; Grand Rapids: Baker).

226.

Weisberg

D.E.

2004 ‘The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient Israel’, JSOT 28.4: 403-29.

227.

West

1997 ‘The Book of Ruth: An Example of Procreative Strategies for Queers’, in Goss

Strongheart

(eds.), Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of Queer Kinship (New York: Harrington Park) 51-60.

228.

West

2006 ‘Ruth’, in Guest

et al. (eds.), The Queer Bible Commentary (London: SCM Press) 190-94.

229.

Westbrook

1991 Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup, 113; Sheffield: JSOT Press).

230.

Westermann

1999 ‘Structure and Intention of the Book of Ruth’, Word and World 19: 285-302.

231.

Wolde

E. van

1997a Ruth and Naomi (London: SCM).

232.

Wolde

E. van

1997b ‘Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narratives’, BibInt 5.1: 1-28.

233.

Wünch

H.-G.

1998 Das Buch Rut (BKAT, 10; Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler).

234.

Yee

G.A.

2003 Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress).

235.

Yee

G.A.

2009 ‘“She Stood in Tears amid the Alien Corn”: Ruth the Perpetual Foreigner and Model Minority’, in Bailey

R.C.

Liew

T.-S.B.

Segovia

F.F.

(eds.), They Were All Together in One Place?: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism (Semeia Studies, 57; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 119-40.

236.

Younger

K.L.

2002 Judges, Ruth (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

237.

Ziegler

2007 ‘“So Shall God Do…”: Variations of an Oath Formula and Its Literary Meaning’, JBL 126.1: 59-81.

238.

Ziegler

2008 Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative (Leiden: Brill).

239.

Ziegler

2015 Ruth: From Alienation to Monarchy (Maggid Studies in Tanakh; Jerusalem: Koren).