BOOK: JPS Commentary on Ruth

[Crumpy]

Notes on
The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth
by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tivka Frymer-Kensky
Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 2011

I have all of the JPS commentaries (Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Noah, Esther,
Ecclestiastes, and the Hafterot) and have read
nearly all of them (except the Hafterot). They are
all high quality commentaries targeting the literal
sense of the texts in the Jewish tradition.

This commentary on Ruth appears to be well-researched
and is well-written. A broad survey of older Jewish
commentaries is presented along with more modern
discussions.

There are several interwoven threads of meaning in the
Book of Ruth. One major part of the story is the presentation
of the geneology of King David. So, the book of Ruth is a
bridge between the biblical time of the judges (chieftains)
and the monarchies of Saul, David, and Solomon.

The Book of Ruth and this commentary refrain from any
homiletic discussions of social justice towards
immigrants. Ruth is more than an immigrant, she is a
convert to Judaism. So, her conversion story is a
major thread in the Book and this commentary.

The Bible describes times of tranquility and co-existence
between Israel and the Moab. The Bible also has strong
negative feelings towards Moabites. This is a tension
that is evident throughout the book of Ruth, and the
commentary shows how Ruth goes through stages of conversion
and acceptance by Israelites.

A major area of discussion in the commentary is about the
hesed (“lovingkindness”) exhibited in the book of Ruth.
Hesed is any good deed done for anybody else beyond the
call of duty. There’s plenty of hesed in Ruth, which
unveils the major theology of the book of Ruth, as well.

Biblical levirate marriage and redemption are concepts of
the book of Ruth that are extensively unpacked in this
commentary. Redemption is the great care and concern for
destitute people, particularly relatives, that is a standard
of conduct in the Bible.

Levirate marriage refers to the marriage of a man to his
deceased brother’s wife, so that the widow is cared for and
that an offspring can be produced to inherit the property of
the deceased and carry on his name.

This commentary takes the point of view that there is no
basis for considering the marriage of the lead characters,
Ruth and Boaz, to be a levirate marriage.

In the Book of Ruth, the redemption of Ruth and Naomi is
presented after the details of the marriage, but this is
not a standard redemption according to any known Bible
commands, in any strict sense.

The female authors take a long hard but sympathetic look at
the presentation of women in the Book of Ruth. Women are
largely in control, in this book, within the cultural
and biblical understanding. The gentile ancestry of King
David (and we would add Jesus) is discussed in detail.

 

[Crumpy]

After reading this commentary, I compared the entries for the Book of Ruth in “The Jewish Study Bible” Editors Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, Oxford Univ Press, 2004.

There are some strong similarities to the JPS commentary, to be expected, as the classic opinions of the Talmud and other Jewish writings were consulted for both.

The Commentary is much more exhaustive every step of the way.​

The JPS Commentary: Ruth has a 70-page introduction and a 95-page text of the commentary.

Like the other JPS commentaries, this commentary has no word index.

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve heard one opinion that the book of Ruth is fictional (just like that).

This commentary discusses that possibility, pointing out that if King David did NOT have some gentile ancestry, there wouldn’t have been any reason to write this book.

---

the commentary discusses why Boaz married Ruth and took on the care of Ruth and Naomi (redemption). They do not attach much significance to the fact that Ruth had already been married to a Jew in Moab. So, there wasn’t SO much of a sting to Boaz marrying Ruth, I would think. Marriage is surely not conversion to Judaism, in and of itself. I think that the prior marriage might have carried some weight is making it easier for Boaz to marry Ruth. I don’t have anything to support that technically, though.

 

[Crumpy]

The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is rather skeptical about the book of Ruth.

This Catholic commentary by Alice Laffey starts off by saying that although the story of Ruth is plausible, “most scholars” take it that Ruth is fictional. The short commentary ends on a similarly skeptical but upbeat note, that this book of scripture is good literature.

Inbetween those bookend comments, Laffey takes the point of view opposite of the JPS commentary, that the marriage of Boaz and Ruth IS a levirate marriage. But, she states this over and over, without much concern over the issue.

There are various issues in the text of Ruth, claims the JPS commentary, that argue against the marriage being a levirate marriage, the first of which is that the text does not say that it is a levirate marriage. Another argument is that it does not meet the conditions for a levirate marriage.

Notwithstanding this difference of opinion, an irony in Ruth regards the concluding ancestry and lineage. First of all, TNJBC says this this ancestry is probably a “priestly addition” to the work at a later time, after its original composition. The irony involves the stated ancestry. Boaz marries Ruth to give a male heir who is supposed to keep alive the name of Ruth’s first husband. But, the ancestry attributes the ancestry of Obed to Boaz and not to Ruth’s first husband. This is more than irony, it is a big inconsistency in the whole story.