Next morning I woke up refreshed and relaxed. Having taken my hearty breakfast, I was about to switch on my iPad, with the object of listening to music. Then, to my surprise, Theophil made his appearance.
“We have some unfinished business, Peter’le. Let us get back to our drawing board. Do tell me why you continue to dislike Ruth. I know that your aversion for King David – which you have already conceded – is one ground. Does your antipathy go any deeper than that?”
“It does, Maestro. Let us take my first point: the author sermonizes throughout. We are told that Boaz is Ish Ḥayil. Why doesn’t he enable us – the readers – to reach this conclusion as we engross ourselves in the text? It shows that Boaz is exactly that: a prosperous, progressive and principled man.”
“The author does the same with Ruth. We know from the very start that she is a principled woman, who knows when to act, Peter’le. Let us consider your other reservations and then discuss them together.”
“The author doesn’t show any internal struggles in the characters’ dominating the book. Think about Naomi’s plan respecting Ruth’s nocturnal visit to the threshing grounds. Surely, either she or, in the very least Ruth, were aware of the risk involved in a single woman proceeding to a barn after the men have finished their work and had a few drinks. Doesn’t Ruth risk her reputation and honour?”
“But Peter’le, we already know that Boaz is not the sort of man who would take advantage, don’t we?”
“We do; and that is a defect. In a well written work, we would see how Ruth settles her misgivings by consenting to Naomi’s plan. In the book as written, she simply agrees to go ahead.”
“Any other reservations, my friend?”
“Yes, Maestro. Ruth is repetitive. For instance, Boaz is introduced three times! Is this needed?”
“In a literary piece, it would not be. And in that context, your other objection would be sound and convincing. But tell me please: is Ruth such a work, say, a short story?”
“Actually, it isn’t,” I conceded after some internal reflections. “It is a religious text. And it is read every year at Shavuot [Pentecost] in Ashkenazi Synagogues.”
“Precisely, Peter’le. We deal with a work that seeks to make some religious or doctrinal points. People do not read as a literary work. If they read it at all, their object is to comprehend the faith it promotes. In that case, would your reservation be valid?”
“Not really, Maestro. I have to concede that, thereupon, my reservations become irrelevant. They would be pedantic when applied to a purely religious work.”
“I am glad you concede the point. The reservations raised by you are not weaknesses. Your having withdrawn them shows that, to the very end, you have kept an open mind. Still, before we end this session I am going to raise my final point. Suppose that Ruth was read by an orthodox leader. Would he wish to suppress the book?”
“Nehemiah might have done so. Tolerance was not one of his attributes. But later religious leaders adopted Ruth! This acceptance was not merely doctrinal or theoretical. The book circulated. Scraps of it were discovered amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran [Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls (Brill, 2019), pp. 735-8].”
“What does this establish, Peterle?”
“It confirms that by the 1st century BCE (at the latest) the text has been entrenched or, in other words, accepted as a standard text of Judaism”
“Why, do you think it was recognised in such a manner Peter’le?”
“Because it mashes with dogma. It tells us that ḥésed can be exercised so as to amplify, perhaps even override, legal norms; and that once accepted as a member of the community, a ger is to be treated with the same respect as a person of pure blood.”
“Precisely, Peter’le. And this message complements dogma; it does not militate.”
“I still prefer Job, Jonah and Ecclesiastes!”
“I know, Peter’le. They appeal to you for their scholarly merit. As religious narrative, Ruth is to be preferred. The reader is not left in doubt.”
“I agree,” I nodded affirmatively. “And, Maestro, Ruth rhymes with Shtut but makes sense.
For a few minutes we continued to sit together. I then felt that I was hungry.
“Why don’t you proceed to your favoured restaurant, Peter’le. You deserve a good meal. And don’t worry about sugar and calories. Today, I’ll sort this out for you.”