Is the book of Ruth fiction?

[Difflugia]

I was looking through some old posts to find topics that would make good debate topics, but were never fully explored. One of them is if the biblical book of Ruth is fiction in the sense that the author wrote it as such, perhaps as an extended parable, with the expectation that readers would know and understand it to be fictional?

[Difflugia]

In an earlier post, I wrote:

The book of Ruth contains several nods to the reader that the book is intended to be read as fiction. The names of Ruth's and Orpah's husbands, Mahlon and Chilion are sort of giveaways. Both die too soon, leaving their wives without support. Mahlon means "sickness" and Chilion means something like "incompleteness" or "annihilation." The name Orpah, Ruth's sister-in-law that went back to Moab, means "the back of the neck" and in Hebrew, to "turn one's neck" is a similar euphemism to turning one's back in English. Chapter three is also chock-full of words that are Hebrew sexual euphemisms and references to sexual stories in other books of the Bible.

• Variations of "to know", "to lie" and "go into" are used several times.
• "Feet" is a well-known biblical euphemism for genitals.
• The phrase usually translated as "go uncover his feet" in 3:4 and 7 literally (and ambiguously) means "go to where his feet are and uncover." As in English, "uncover" here can take either the feet or (reflexively) Ruth as the direct object. Since Hebrew has an easy way to make clear which was the direct object and the author didn't use it, I think the ambiguity is intentional.
• The "threshing floor" is described as a place of prostitution in Hosea 9:1.
• The "spread your garment/wings" thing is from Ezekiel 16:8, which describes God's relationship with Jerusalem as an old guy rapey-marrying a young girl.
• Chapter 3 ends with Boaz putting seed in Ruth's lap.

I have to believe that the whole chapter is basically a wink to the reader as a kind of dirty joke.

[JehovahsWitness]

Since death and sex are part of the human condition, I cannot see how the presence of either would definitively mark a work as being fictional.



JW

[Difflugia]

I found another relevant post I made:

I'd like to point out Ruth 3 is a sexual double entendre. The "uncover his feet" thing as a euphemism for genitals is well known and discussed often, but there's more to the chapter in the Hebrew. A large number of words and phrases are either sexual euphemisms or allude to stories in other books of the Bible that involve sexual activity.

Here's Ruth 3 from the ASV with the sexy stuff in red and my notes in blue:

And Naomi her mother-in-law said unto her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee? And now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose maidens thou wast? Behold, he winnoweth barley to-night in the threshing-floor (Hosea 9:1-2, the threshing floor is a place of prostitution). Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon thee, and get thee down to the threshing-floor, but make not thyself known unto the man, until he shall have done eating and drinking. And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark ("mark" here or "observe" in some translations is a form of the verb "know") the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in (Gen. 16:4), and uncover his feet the Hebrew here is intentionally ambiguous; it could also mean "go to his feet and uncover [yourself]", and lay thee down; and he will tell thee what thou shalt do. And she said unto her, All that thou sayest I will do.

And she went down unto the threshing-floor, and did according to all that her mother-in-law bade her. And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain: and she came ("went in," Gen. 19:33) softly, and uncovered his feet (or, "uncovered [herself] at his feet", and laid her down. And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid, and turned himself; and, behold, a woman lay at his feet. And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thy handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thy handmaid (this is a reference to Ezekiel 16 which is a disturbing allusion to a marriage via rape); for thou art a near kinsman.

Then in the morning Boaz drops a bunch of seed in her lap.

I don't think the overuse of the words that can be sexual euphemisms can be a coincidence. If the biblical references actually refer to what I think they do, that also means that Ruth was written after the minor prophets, most of which were written during the exile.

[Overcomer]

Diffulgia wrote:

One of them is if the biblical book of Ruth is fiction in the sense that the author wrote it as such, perhaps as an extended parable, with the expectation that readers would know and understand it to be fictional?

The Book of Ruth is of tremendous importance because of what it says about what is called, according to the laws of the Pentateuch, "the kinsmen redeemer". In that culture, a male relative had the responsibility of acting on behalf of a relative who was in trouble and could not extricate himself or herself from it without help. As such, a kinsman redeemer was a rescuer of a weaker person.

The account of Ruth gives us a clear example of that as Boaz steps in and rescues Ruth. She had no means to change her lot in life. She needed him.

The story is still significant for the Christian today in that Jesus is our kinsman redeemer, stepping in to rescue us from sin and death, something we could not do for ourselves. See more here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/kinsman-redeemer.html

As for it being merely a parable, that is not how the Jews themselves would have understood it. Note that Matthew, in the genealogy of Jesus in the first chapter of his gospel, lists Ruth and Boaz as his ancestors. Genealogies were paramount to the Jews for several reasons. For one thing, it's what proved that a Jew really was a Jew. This was important with regard to land claims and inclusion in priesthood, for example. And the genealogies of Jesus are tremendously important as they prove he is the Son of David. See here for more:

https://www.gotquestions.org/genealogies-Israel.html

So the Jews would have understood and accepted it as a true story about real people living out the practice of the kinsman redeemer.

[nobspeople]

I was looking through some old posts to find topics that would make good debate topics, but were never fully explored. One of them is if the biblical book of Ruth is fiction in the sense that the author wrote it as such, perhaps as an extended parable, with the expectation that readers would know and understand it to be fictional?

If we were to declare it fiction and shouldn't be included, does that mean the other books are non-fiction and legitimate?
Aren't all the books considered by many fiction?

[Difflugia]

The Book of Ruth is of tremendous importance because of what it says about what is called, according to the laws of the Pentateuch, "the kinsmen redeemer". In that culture, a male relative had the responsibility of acting on behalf of a relative who was in trouble and could not extricate himself or herself from it without help. As such, a kinsman redeemer was a rescuer of a weaker person.

The account of Ruth gives us a clear example of that as Boaz steps in and rescues Ruth. She had no means to change her lot in life. She needed him.

The story is still significant for the Christian today in that Jesus is our kinsman redeemer, stepping in to rescue us from sin and death, something we could not do for ourselves.

I didn't say that the story wasn't important, only that it wasn't history. The fictional story was written to more-or-less make the point that you say it was. The moral of the story seems to be that neither kinship nor nationality is the most important factor in being a good person, but strength of character. In this way, the story of Ruth is laid out much like the parable of the good Samaritan, except both Ruth and Boaz are the "Samaritans." Naomi, a Judahite, is left widowed and without support. Her daughters-in-law, being from Moab, have neither ethnic nor nationalistic ties to her. Orpah leaves and, though this is presented as being reasonable, it's also offered as the negative foil to Ruth's compassion. Similarly Boaz, though near enough to be a "kinsman redeemer," isn't the closest. That offers the closer redeemer (amusingly just called "So-and-so" as though that's his name) the chance to refuse, once again for understandable, but selfish reasons. In the way that Ruth was the better daughter-in-law, now Boaz has the chance to be the better redeemer.

None of that, however, makes the story any less likely to be fiction.

As for it being merely a parable, that is not how the Jews themselves would have understood it.

What makes you certain of that?

Note that Matthew, in the genealogy of Jesus in the first chapter of his gospel, lists Ruth and Boaz as his ancestors.

That's one of the reasons that I think the author of Matthew was intentionally writing fiction. While there's some question about whether the authors of Mark and Luke could read Hebrew, it's pretty certain that "Matthew" did. As such, it would be hard to miss the less-than-subtle nods to the reader that Ruth was fiction.

Genealogies were paramount to the Jews for several reasons. For one thing, it's what proved that a Jew really was a Jew. This was important with regard to land claims and inclusion in priesthood, for example. And the genealogies of Jesus are tremendously important as they prove he is the Son of David.

I'd agree that Matthew's genealogy is important to his story (it's why he included it, after all), but that's not evidence that it's correct or the genealogy itself was meant to be historical nonfiction. Mark 12:35-37 looks to me to have been written as justification that the Messiah didn't have to be (and indeed couldn't be) the literal descendant of David. If Matthew wanted a different story than Mark in which Jesus was the "son of David," it stands to reason that Matthew would add a genealogy of Jesus to, as you say, prove that. In any case, however, Matthew was written a few hundred years after Ruth. Matthew's literary and theological interpretations do nothing to alter the details of Ruth.

So the Jews would have understood and accepted it as a true story about real people living out the practice of the kinsman redeemer.

This statement follows from nothing you wrote, even if we accept all of it at face value. It's a non sequitur.

[Difflugia]

If we were to declare it fiction and shouldn't be included, does that mean the other books are non-fiction and legitimate?
Aren't all the books considered by many fiction?

Why shouldn't it be included (I assume you mean in the Bible) and considered legitimate if it's fiction? I'm pretty sure Esther and Job are fiction, too. They have important religious stories to tell and don't have to be literal history to tell them. If I were inclined to be Christian, I would be more likely to consider Ruth inspired as brilliant fiction than as a poor attempt at history.

I don't think the whole Bible is properly fiction, though. I don't, for example, think that the authors (or redactors) of the books of Samuel and Kings intended them to be read as fiction, even if many of the earlier stories are, in fact, legendary. I think the authors believed that they were recounting the history of the Israelites, even if they were altering some of the details. There's definitely a slippery slope there if one's not careful, but I think a distinction can be made between "religious fiction" and "embellished history."

[Haven]

I was looking through some old posts to find topics that would make good debate topics, but were never fully explored. One of them is if the biblical book of Ruth is fiction in the sense that the author wrote it as such, perhaps as an extended parable, with the expectation that readers would know and understand it to be fictional?

There is no indication that the book of Ruth contains anything confirmed to be historical, although it has traditionally been viewed that way by Christian and non-Christian sources. It is likely, in my opinion, largely fiction, but inspired by real events, like a lot of religious myth and history of the time.

[1213]

I was looking through some old posts to find topics that would make good debate topics, but were never fully explored. One of them is if the biblical book of Ruth is fiction in the sense that the author wrote it as such, perhaps as an extended parable, with the expectation that readers would know and understand it to be fictional?

I don’t think there really is anything that supports the idea that is fictional. It is told in a manner that I wouldn’t think means it is meant to be taken as fictional.