vs 10
So Boaz must be a fair way older than Ruth. I don't know what that sort of age would be for their culture, but it could be quite marked, considering a typical age difference at first marriage could be 10 years. We'll never know, because God didn't see fit to put copies of their driver's licences in the Bible.
I don't know about you, but calling the woman I'm about to marry "daughter" just seems creepy. Obviously it is some term of endearment, but still. I guess when someone says, "Hey baby, let's groove" if you take it literally it is also quite disturbing.
[edit] The word for kindness, hesed, is a very important word in Ruth. It is all about covenant faithfulness - and so Boaz is not necessarily talking about Ruth's kindness to him, but to Naomi.
vs 11
My town? Is he perhaps an elder? It has been suggested from the suggestion of his wealth and importance in chapter 2. Or is he just speaking in an adoptive sense, could be.
In the indeterminable time that Ruth and Naomi have been in Bethlehem, Ruth has shown herself to the general populace to be a woman of noble character. That is good for Ruth, because it means respect, but it also is good for Boaz, because it means people won't frown on him marrying her.
vs 12
It's the... thing! I don't know what you call it in movie terms, but it's the classic part of the movie where some dramatic tension enters and leaves you guessing about the ending! Perhaps if we thought about God being slow to answer prayers as him giving us dramatic tension, we would feel better about it.
No, probably not.
vs 13
Boaz wants to take all the right steps. No point promising to marry the gel when some other guy could come along and take her from him. But also, following the proper protocol is good, because God set it down. Boaz thinks that if the closer redeemer wants to redeem, then that is a good thing. [edit] So when we say "do the right thing", that doesn't mean some bumping uglies wasn't in offer - all it means is that Boaz wants to give the other guy first refusal.
So, here then is a question for you - why, if there was a closer kinsman, didn't Naomi send Ruth straight to him to ask him to redeem her and the land of Elimelech? And don't say that it wasn't the done thing, because Ruth just spent the night sleeping at the feet of Boaz. [edit] There is the suggestion that Naomi just didn't know, or perhaps that she saw Ruth's working in his fields as a sign from God.
vs 14
This is the verse that really suggests that what Ruth did (what Naomi told Ruth to do) was a little shameful. Why were women banned from the threshing floor? Who can say. Whatever the case may be, Boaz is quick to protect Naomi's nobleness of character and whoosh her off before anyone sees her.
vs 15
Whoever went back to town, (although from the (T)NIV note it sounds like the majority of texts say 'he', but the KJV which is supposedly based on the majority text, says 'she'?), Boaz is being even more generous to Ruth by giving her this grain. [edit] The Masoretic text says "he", but the qere says "she", and apparently pretty much every other non-Hebrew source says "she". It's a commonly held mistake, and so that's why even the KJV says "She". Why the TNIV would maintain the "he", then, is interesting.
At first, you might think of it as a bride price or something - but it's not, really, because for all he knows he won't even get to marry her. He is just repaying her, kindness for kindness. A measure of barley is an unknown quanitity - but you can carry 6 of them in a shawl.
vs 16
I imagine this was very much done in the way women nattering is done when there is some good news. [edit] The question is actually "Who are you, my daughter?" Someone in our class suggested that the question could be suggesting, "Who are you - are you now the husband of Boaz?" Interesting theory.
vs 17
He didn't actually say that according to the record we have! Is she lying? Oh no!
Or, perhaps Scripture doesn't provide us with a full script of what happens, just essential details, and as such some things get said that aren't recorded. And so now this is filled in - the purpose for Boaz' kindness is to also be kind to Naomi.
[edit] This is actually way more important than I first thought. The wording is almost word for word the same wording that was said way back in the beginning of the book, talking about Naomi coming back to Bethlehem empty. "Handed" is an english addition.
vs 18
What a tense ending! Naomi's advice is good advice - no point in Ruth getting all excited when nothing at all could happen from it. Better to wait and see the result, and then have your joy confirmed.
Besides, Boaz isn't going to let it stretch out for months - he's dealing with it in one day.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Ruth chapter 3
vs 1
After an indeterminate period of time. I am getting more and more convinced by this little seed of doubt that Andrew Sloane sowed about Naomi being in a godly state of mourning. Here she is wanting to make sure Naomi gets a "home" - that is, a husband really.
vs 2
This sounds like some sort of scheme is being hatched. [edit] It also should be noted that, although the hebrew is full of interrogatives, there are no questions marks here early in the TNIV. The NIV still has them. Does that matter? They were really rhetorical questions anyway.
vs 3
It is a scheme! Perfume and best clothes - those are seduction tools!
Now, whether winnowing barley was party night every night, or whether this was a specific night, who knows. I'm tempted to wonder if this isn't the last night of harvest or something, considering the last verse of chapter 2.
vs 4
I think sometimes we can picture Ruth as a young, virginal maiden who is being told to go and do this quite bizzare thing (I mean, uncover the feet?) and who perhaps doesn't realise the full extent of her situation. That's baloney. She was married for 10 years. She's not an old woman, but she's no spring chicken either. She's been around.
Also, she wants to get married. All women in this era did. Anyone who argues with me on this is being fenickity, and on your own head be it.
vs 5-6
Thank God for whoever wrote Ruth, and that it wasn't Moses. They didn't feel the need to repeat themselves.
vs 7
Very weird custom.
Now, you really have to ask why the men decide that sleeping at the threshing floor is such a better place than going home. Is it just a typical drunken thing where you just sleep where you find yourself? Were they all young men and so didn't have wives to go home to anyway? Is it because travelling at night can be quite dangerous when light is a burning piece of wood?
[edit] The accepted thing is apparently that he was guarding the grain harvest. And it doesn't say that all the men were with him. I read that into there. Interesting.
The second one is interesting, because if that is so, then it would mean that Boaz - although possibly an older man - may not be married. Perhaps he is widowed or something else happened to him.
What would be more interesting would be if he were married, but Naomi is trying to set Ruth up with him anyway. It's certainly not out of the question.
vs 8
Now that's worthy of an exclamation mark! [edit] and I translated one there too!
Note that Ruth didn't startle him or wake him. She just curled up at his feet like an obedient puppy.
vs 9
Don't think of the "Who are you?" as Boaz wondering what woman this is today. Think of it more as no natural light can't recognise woman.
Ruth's invitation is - as far as I read it - an invitation to marriage. How many marriage proposals are there in the Bible? I would say this is the only one - and it's done by a woman. So there you go. [edit] Andrew Sloane believes something saucier is going on here, and that our inability to accept that is our inability to accept the culture at the time. He makes a very convincing argument.
What is Boaz' reaction? Find out tomorrow!
After an indeterminate period of time. I am getting more and more convinced by this little seed of doubt that Andrew Sloane sowed about Naomi being in a godly state of mourning. Here she is wanting to make sure Naomi gets a "home" - that is, a husband really.
vs 2
This sounds like some sort of scheme is being hatched. [edit] It also should be noted that, although the hebrew is full of interrogatives, there are no questions marks here early in the TNIV. The NIV still has them. Does that matter? They were really rhetorical questions anyway.
vs 3
It is a scheme! Perfume and best clothes - those are seduction tools!
Now, whether winnowing barley was party night every night, or whether this was a specific night, who knows. I'm tempted to wonder if this isn't the last night of harvest or something, considering the last verse of chapter 2.
vs 4
I think sometimes we can picture Ruth as a young, virginal maiden who is being told to go and do this quite bizzare thing (I mean, uncover the feet?) and who perhaps doesn't realise the full extent of her situation. That's baloney. She was married for 10 years. She's not an old woman, but she's no spring chicken either. She's been around.
Also, she wants to get married. All women in this era did. Anyone who argues with me on this is being fenickity, and on your own head be it.
vs 5-6
Thank God for whoever wrote Ruth, and that it wasn't Moses. They didn't feel the need to repeat themselves.
vs 7
Very weird custom.
Now, you really have to ask why the men decide that sleeping at the threshing floor is such a better place than going home. Is it just a typical drunken thing where you just sleep where you find yourself? Were they all young men and so didn't have wives to go home to anyway? Is it because travelling at night can be quite dangerous when light is a burning piece of wood?
[edit] The accepted thing is apparently that he was guarding the grain harvest. And it doesn't say that all the men were with him. I read that into there. Interesting.
The second one is interesting, because if that is so, then it would mean that Boaz - although possibly an older man - may not be married. Perhaps he is widowed or something else happened to him.
What would be more interesting would be if he were married, but Naomi is trying to set Ruth up with him anyway. It's certainly not out of the question.
vs 8
Now that's worthy of an exclamation mark! [edit] and I translated one there too!
Note that Ruth didn't startle him or wake him. She just curled up at his feet like an obedient puppy.
vs 9
Don't think of the "Who are you?" as Boaz wondering what woman this is today. Think of it more as no natural light can't recognise woman.
Ruth's invitation is - as far as I read it - an invitation to marriage. How many marriage proposals are there in the Bible? I would say this is the only one - and it's done by a woman. So there you go. [edit] Andrew Sloane believes something saucier is going on here, and that our inability to accept that is our inability to accept the culture at the time. He makes a very convincing argument.
What is Boaz' reaction? Find out tomorrow!
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Ruth chapter 2
vs 13
The expectation of this verse is that someone speaks kindly to his servants - or at least, more kindly to a servant than to a beggar. It's good to know that the pecking order still goes strong in our society.
The important thing, though, is that not only did Ruth see it as kindness, but it seems to be reasonably measurable against the tone of the day as kind action.
vs 14
Unfortunately, I don't know what sort of social status bread and wine vinegar and roasted grain gives you. I'm assuming it's pretty standard fare, but the fact is the meal is for the servants (harvesters in this case), not for beggars. So this is a very kind thing to do.
Apparently this is the midday meal. That would seem implicit from the context (assuming the dinner meal was served at home), because she goes on to glean until evening.
vs 15
This is going beyond the kindness expected by the Law. You really do have to start asking questions about Boaz' intent around now. It's one thing to follow the tenets of the Law and to show kindness to a stranger. But now he is showing her extra kindness and favour. Is it because he found out that she was Naomi's daughter in law? Well, he found that out from his overseer.
So does he have the hots for her? If he does, he shows it at least in a nice and favourable way. But also in a totally not approaching her way. Perhaps the answer to this question is lost in the mists of time and cultural difference.
vs 16
Just further kindness.
vs 17
Just take a look at how much that is. 13 kilos. That's a lot. I've always read that as "Ruth worked hard to support her mother in law, and look at the fruits of her labour." And I still think that stands - she went out and worked the fields as a gleaner all day.
But now there's another part to that story - through Boaz's kindness, Ruth would have been able to glean more than was normally possible - thanks to the dropped sheaves and such. So between the two of our heroes, there is a reason she had so much.
Now, how long would 13 kilos of barley last them for? I have no idea.
vs 18
Were they going to sell the barley, or eat it? Don't know. You can make barley flour I'm sure.
Ruth carried 13 kilos of worked barley all the way home. She's quite a woman. Do they make them like that anymore? I guess so, just not in the first world.
vs 19
This question could have arisen due to the fact that Ruth brought home that extra food from the mealtime. This extra food would have been a clear mark to Naomi that something out of the ordinary was happening, and that a man had 'taken notice of her'.
Note that, for all her "bitterness towards God" (or piestic lamenting) she is still happy to ask that God pour out praises on such a man.
vs 20
Wait, when did he start showing kindness? Unless Naomi is talking about the Lord's kindness, which would seem out of character. And doesn't really flow with the idea either.
Perhaps this was a comment made after Naomi heard the whole story - and the kindness upon kindness caused this comment.
Now, if you want an interesting topic, look at how the bibles translate the term: "closest relatives" (NASB), " "next kinsman" (KJV), "kinsman redeemers" (NIV) and now the TNIV comes up with "family guardians".
The hebrew is actually quite simple, for once. I'm no expert, but it says something like... erm, qarov... aha! "Near to us the man from redeemer us he." Now if that's not a wooden translation, I don't know what is! So really, make up whatever term you like - the word is redeemer.
One thing I will say about the TNIV is that it has a note explaining what it means, and also giving a link to Lev 25:25-55. So it wins my vote, even though I prefer the term "kinsman redeemer".
vs 21
Awww, what a sweetheart! Although I guess if the translators had translated an exclamation mark there, Ruth would have sounded too much like a teenage girl. OMG OMG he wants me to harvest in his fields!
vs 22
Well, if we had any misgivings about the chances of being harmed in another person's field, then this clinches it. Judges time was a dangerous time. As if any time isn't a dangerous time for single women with no-one to back them up.
vs 23
Again, a nice wrapup for the chapter. I must say, miscellaneous monk who did the chapters and verses for Ruth - well done! I haven't had any grumblings so far, and indeed I've thought they were quite logical! Smart man.
The expectation of this verse is that someone speaks kindly to his servants - or at least, more kindly to a servant than to a beggar. It's good to know that the pecking order still goes strong in our society.
The important thing, though, is that not only did Ruth see it as kindness, but it seems to be reasonably measurable against the tone of the day as kind action.
vs 14
Unfortunately, I don't know what sort of social status bread and wine vinegar and roasted grain gives you. I'm assuming it's pretty standard fare, but the fact is the meal is for the servants (harvesters in this case), not for beggars. So this is a very kind thing to do.
Apparently this is the midday meal. That would seem implicit from the context (assuming the dinner meal was served at home), because she goes on to glean until evening.
vs 15
This is going beyond the kindness expected by the Law. You really do have to start asking questions about Boaz' intent around now. It's one thing to follow the tenets of the Law and to show kindness to a stranger. But now he is showing her extra kindness and favour. Is it because he found out that she was Naomi's daughter in law? Well, he found that out from his overseer.
So does he have the hots for her? If he does, he shows it at least in a nice and favourable way. But also in a totally not approaching her way. Perhaps the answer to this question is lost in the mists of time and cultural difference.
vs 16
Just further kindness.
vs 17
Just take a look at how much that is. 13 kilos. That's a lot. I've always read that as "Ruth worked hard to support her mother in law, and look at the fruits of her labour." And I still think that stands - she went out and worked the fields as a gleaner all day.
But now there's another part to that story - through Boaz's kindness, Ruth would have been able to glean more than was normally possible - thanks to the dropped sheaves and such. So between the two of our heroes, there is a reason she had so much.
Now, how long would 13 kilos of barley last them for? I have no idea.
vs 18
Were they going to sell the barley, or eat it? Don't know. You can make barley flour I'm sure.
Ruth carried 13 kilos of worked barley all the way home. She's quite a woman. Do they make them like that anymore? I guess so, just not in the first world.
vs 19
This question could have arisen due to the fact that Ruth brought home that extra food from the mealtime. This extra food would have been a clear mark to Naomi that something out of the ordinary was happening, and that a man had 'taken notice of her'.
Note that, for all her "bitterness towards God" (or piestic lamenting) she is still happy to ask that God pour out praises on such a man.
vs 20
Wait, when did he start showing kindness? Unless Naomi is talking about the Lord's kindness, which would seem out of character. And doesn't really flow with the idea either.
Perhaps this was a comment made after Naomi heard the whole story - and the kindness upon kindness caused this comment.
Now, if you want an interesting topic, look at how the bibles translate the term: "closest relatives" (NASB), " "next kinsman" (KJV), "kinsman redeemers" (NIV) and now the TNIV comes up with "family guardians".
The hebrew is actually quite simple, for once. I'm no expert, but it says something like... erm, qarov... aha! "Near to us the man from redeemer us he." Now if that's not a wooden translation, I don't know what is! So really, make up whatever term you like - the word is redeemer.
One thing I will say about the TNIV is that it has a note explaining what it means, and also giving a link to Lev 25:25-55. So it wins my vote, even though I prefer the term "kinsman redeemer".
vs 21
Awww, what a sweetheart! Although I guess if the translators had translated an exclamation mark there, Ruth would have sounded too much like a teenage girl. OMG OMG he wants me to harvest in his fields!
vs 22
Well, if we had any misgivings about the chances of being harmed in another person's field, then this clinches it. Judges time was a dangerous time. As if any time isn't a dangerous time for single women with no-one to back them up.
vs 23
Again, a nice wrapup for the chapter. I must say, miscellaneous monk who did the chapters and verses for Ruth - well done! I haven't had any grumblings so far, and indeed I've thought they were quite logical! Smart man.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Ruth chapter 2
vs 1
Boaz is either a man of wealth or a man of standing. I guess we all know that one can quite easily make the other, so there it is.
vs 2
This was supposed to be the normal process in the lands of Israel - it was a method of support for the widow and other unfortunate members of society. The word 'glean' is used in the older translations.
I haven't translated this far yet... wondering if I should wait till we've finished... but I've started now. I am interested to know what the term "in whose eyes I find favour" is like.
vs 3
"As it turned out" is a code word for saying "And so God made it happen" - it's one of the themes of Ruth that God works through happenstance. I think this makes it clear that Ruth didn't go looking to glean in the fields of someone who might "favour" to marry her or anything like that - it was more a case of finding someone who would allow her to just glean in their fields.
vs 4
Either this was a typical greeting between wealthy land owner and workers, or Boaz is well liked by his workers. It seems that the picture painted of him is a kind and thoughtful man who looks after others, so I've always liked the idea of the second one. After all, if it were simply a cultural thing, then it would be less likely to be written in - people who live in a culture tend to leave out things that they think are normal in writing - ceremonial washings and the like - unless they are trying to explain them to non-locals.
vs 5
Now, it depends on how you read it - either he saw a tasty bit of crumpet in the field and was asking about it, or he just had a care for his workers which is shown by him not recognising one of them.
Of course, Ruth, as a moabite woman, would probably show out like a sore thumb too.
vs 6
Now, Boaz would have heard all about that anyway, no doubt, but since Naomi was a relative (at least of the same clan) then he probably would have taken a special interest in the knowledge.
vs 7
Who knows how long that had been. Regardless, the idea is to paint a picture of a conscientious worker who is working hard not just for herself, but to support her widowed mother-in-law who is a relative of Boaz.
vs 8
Now, what are Boaz's intentions? Is it merely that he knows Ruth will be looked after if she stays in his field? Is he being nice to her because she is family (or a sort)? Or again, is he not wanting to lose his chance with the fine moabite tail? The more I think about it, the less likely the third one is going to be recorded for posterity.
vs 9
The fact that, in another field, Ruth may have been molested by male farm workers is just further testimony against the Israelites during the time of the judges, I suppose. Or perhaps he is being less sinister in his suggestion, and merely suggesting that normally such beggars were ejected from fields if they stayed too long.
vs 10
Ruth knows her position. I guess what she doesn't know is that Boaz is related.
vs 11
News travels fast.
vs 12
That is a very nice picture. Ruth has lost something akin to what Naomi has lost - a husband and therefore a livelihood, with no children to support her. That neither her nor Orpah had kids is just further testimony to God's leading (and perhaps punishment on Elimelech for taking his family out of Israel). The idea that God offers refuge to the widow, even the widow from a foreign land, is a very comforting notion. The idea that he also rewards the faithful is strong.
Boaz is either a man of wealth or a man of standing. I guess we all know that one can quite easily make the other, so there it is.
vs 2
This was supposed to be the normal process in the lands of Israel - it was a method of support for the widow and other unfortunate members of society. The word 'glean' is used in the older translations.
I haven't translated this far yet... wondering if I should wait till we've finished... but I've started now. I am interested to know what the term "in whose eyes I find favour" is like.
vs 3
"As it turned out" is a code word for saying "And so God made it happen" - it's one of the themes of Ruth that God works through happenstance. I think this makes it clear that Ruth didn't go looking to glean in the fields of someone who might "favour" to marry her or anything like that - it was more a case of finding someone who would allow her to just glean in their fields.
vs 4
Either this was a typical greeting between wealthy land owner and workers, or Boaz is well liked by his workers. It seems that the picture painted of him is a kind and thoughtful man who looks after others, so I've always liked the idea of the second one. After all, if it were simply a cultural thing, then it would be less likely to be written in - people who live in a culture tend to leave out things that they think are normal in writing - ceremonial washings and the like - unless they are trying to explain them to non-locals.
vs 5
Now, it depends on how you read it - either he saw a tasty bit of crumpet in the field and was asking about it, or he just had a care for his workers which is shown by him not recognising one of them.
Of course, Ruth, as a moabite woman, would probably show out like a sore thumb too.
vs 6
Now, Boaz would have heard all about that anyway, no doubt, but since Naomi was a relative (at least of the same clan) then he probably would have taken a special interest in the knowledge.
vs 7
Who knows how long that had been. Regardless, the idea is to paint a picture of a conscientious worker who is working hard not just for herself, but to support her widowed mother-in-law who is a relative of Boaz.
vs 8
Now, what are Boaz's intentions? Is it merely that he knows Ruth will be looked after if she stays in his field? Is he being nice to her because she is family (or a sort)? Or again, is he not wanting to lose his chance with the fine moabite tail? The more I think about it, the less likely the third one is going to be recorded for posterity.
vs 9
The fact that, in another field, Ruth may have been molested by male farm workers is just further testimony against the Israelites during the time of the judges, I suppose. Or perhaps he is being less sinister in his suggestion, and merely suggesting that normally such beggars were ejected from fields if they stayed too long.
vs 10
Ruth knows her position. I guess what she doesn't know is that Boaz is related.
vs 11
News travels fast.
vs 12
That is a very nice picture. Ruth has lost something akin to what Naomi has lost - a husband and therefore a livelihood, with no children to support her. That neither her nor Orpah had kids is just further testimony to God's leading (and perhaps punishment on Elimelech for taking his family out of Israel). The idea that God offers refuge to the widow, even the widow from a foreign land, is a very comforting notion. The idea that he also rewards the faithful is strong.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Ruth chapter 1
12
An idea which is of course patently unlikely.
There's no spite here - Ruth calls these women her daughters. They are obviously still young enough to marry (Naomi is suggesting that at least) but the tradition that if your husband dies, you marry one of his brothers does not apply here - as both died and Naomi is too old to have more. And even if by some miraculous chance she did have more...
vs 13
...would they wait? She would not expect it of them. They would have better luck going back to their own people and finding husbands there. For your interest, the word "to wait" used here is used only here in the whole Bible. The thought is that it's a fairly specific word - as in to lock yourself away and wait for your husband.
The rest of this verse is not easily translated. The question is whether God has stretched out his hand and punished Naomi (for the disobedience of her family in leaving the promised land and going and taking foreign wives), or whether Naomi sees her continuing life as continuing torment by God.
vs 14
The idea is that there is a contrast in their actions - Orpah's kiss is one of leaving, whereas Ruth's hug is (literally) one of cleaving. The word is the same for cleaving and clinging. I wonder how many liberal scholars have suggested some sort of lesbian affair based on that tenuous word?
vs 15
Interestingly, the word for gods (elohim) is in a plural form regardless of whether you are talking about one god or multiple gods. So you actually can't tell if Naomi is talking about Orpah returning to her own household gods or some polytheist worship, or to worship of a single god. Apparently, the Moabites did have one god called Chemosh.
vs 16
Same word for God here, see. What an important verse. Here Ruth is showing that she is not coming with Naomi merely because she has nowhere else to go - she is adopting the God and people of her dead husband and now mother-in-law.
vs 17
This verse is another one of the difficult to translate ones - but mostly for the newbie. The TNIV does nothing to protect the original meaning, supplanting "May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely" for the oath form that is taken here. A wooden translation would hold something like "Thus may the LORD do, and thus may he add". I think the implication is, the clause being surrounded by death on either side, that Ruth will die - and yet worse - if she breaks this oath to Naomi, her people and her God.
Interestingly, here Ruth uses the name Yahweh for God. Make of that what you will.
Finally, the TNIV is the only one of the translations I use (I believe the NRSV does this too) to translate this verse as "even if death separates you and me" rather than "except when death separates you and me". It's not easily translated, but I would tend to go with the translation of the NIV or others on this one regarding meaning. Separated by nothing except death is surely preferable, meaningful and pragmatic too. Something for everybody.
vs 18
It's literally "Naomi stopped talking to her", but I am told this did not have the childish meaning to it.
vs 19
Now this is interesting. Women are not mentioned at all in this verse, but the only translation failing to mention women is the KJV. Now, again, this is a translation issue - the pronomial thing (ie the bit that means "they") is feminine. So it is reasonable to translate it that the women said it. However, the word for town used (eir ? I made the transliteration up - ayin hireq yod resh) is feminine, so it could just as easily mean the inhabitants of the city generally.
But the rule in Hebrew is generally, if you're describing a group of people and at least one of them is male, you describe it with male pronomials. It isn't really a sticking point with me - if you get the idea that even though they've been gone for ten years or more, the people still recognise Naomi, that'll do.
vs 20
Again, the tenses here a problematic. It could be "has dealt bitterly with me", or it could be "is treating me bitterly". The question of whether it is continuous or not is at stake, and it is actually kinda more important than your regular "Eh, who cares?" translation issue, because it could have bearing on the kind of bitterness and whinging that Naomi (Mara) is doing.
Some say (and no doubt you've heard this in church before) that Mara gets all bitter because she thinks God hates her and now she has put herself in a position against God. However, we also have to understand that wailing and lamentation, even questioning that actions of God, is normal piestic practice in Middle Eastern society. Witness the psalms - and we never call David a God-hater.
Whether it's one or the other will always be debated I think - after all, the narrator stays fairly silent on this, although God does end up blessing Mara (yes, I just ruined the ending).
Another interesting little tidbit here is that the word for Almighty, shaddai, is pretty much a total mystery with regards to its roots. No doubt many a scholar has postulated, but there's not much to base it on. Apparently.
vs 21
Don't miss the irony here. This book is chock full of it. Naomi's family left the promised land because of a famine. Hell, they left a town called "House of Bread" because of a famine and went to a foreign land. They all died, and now she returns because the food has returned to the promised land. But for Naomi, even though she was starving, she left Bethlehem "full" and now returns "empty".
The word afflicted here is problematic. The actual word can mean both "afflicted/humbled", or it can hold a very specific legal meaning which is "to testify against". Interestingly, from what I have been told, following simple scribal rules for translation would mean that the more complex one should hold over the simple, so the testify against should hold - but the (T)NIV doesn't translate it that way. But don't worry - the KJV and NASB translations do.
One interesting thing I will point out is that the word "evil" doesn't pop up here at all in the translations, but it is there in the text. Basically, the word evil (ra'a) means "evil" whenever a person does something evil, but whenever God does something evil (like in this verse) it always means misfortune or calamity. I say "mean" - I mean "is translated".
vs 22
A fairly good end to the opening act of the story, really. We know the main characters (bar one - love interest to enter stage right). We know their situation. All we need is a song and the first bit of the opera is done.
An idea which is of course patently unlikely.
There's no spite here - Ruth calls these women her daughters. They are obviously still young enough to marry (Naomi is suggesting that at least) but the tradition that if your husband dies, you marry one of his brothers does not apply here - as both died and Naomi is too old to have more. And even if by some miraculous chance she did have more...
vs 13
...would they wait? She would not expect it of them. They would have better luck going back to their own people and finding husbands there. For your interest, the word "to wait" used here is used only here in the whole Bible. The thought is that it's a fairly specific word - as in to lock yourself away and wait for your husband.
The rest of this verse is not easily translated. The question is whether God has stretched out his hand and punished Naomi (for the disobedience of her family in leaving the promised land and going and taking foreign wives), or whether Naomi sees her continuing life as continuing torment by God.
vs 14
The idea is that there is a contrast in their actions - Orpah's kiss is one of leaving, whereas Ruth's hug is (literally) one of cleaving. The word is the same for cleaving and clinging. I wonder how many liberal scholars have suggested some sort of lesbian affair based on that tenuous word?
vs 15
Interestingly, the word for gods (elohim) is in a plural form regardless of whether you are talking about one god or multiple gods. So you actually can't tell if Naomi is talking about Orpah returning to her own household gods or some polytheist worship, or to worship of a single god. Apparently, the Moabites did have one god called Chemosh.
vs 16
Same word for God here, see. What an important verse. Here Ruth is showing that she is not coming with Naomi merely because she has nowhere else to go - she is adopting the God and people of her dead husband and now mother-in-law.
vs 17
This verse is another one of the difficult to translate ones - but mostly for the newbie. The TNIV does nothing to protect the original meaning, supplanting "May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely" for the oath form that is taken here. A wooden translation would hold something like "Thus may the LORD do, and thus may he add". I think the implication is, the clause being surrounded by death on either side, that Ruth will die - and yet worse - if she breaks this oath to Naomi, her people and her God.
Interestingly, here Ruth uses the name Yahweh for God. Make of that what you will.
Finally, the TNIV is the only one of the translations I use (I believe the NRSV does this too) to translate this verse as "even if death separates you and me" rather than "except when death separates you and me". It's not easily translated, but I would tend to go with the translation of the NIV or others on this one regarding meaning. Separated by nothing except death is surely preferable, meaningful and pragmatic too. Something for everybody.
vs 18
It's literally "Naomi stopped talking to her", but I am told this did not have the childish meaning to it.
vs 19
Now this is interesting. Women are not mentioned at all in this verse, but the only translation failing to mention women is the KJV. Now, again, this is a translation issue - the pronomial thing (ie the bit that means "they") is feminine. So it is reasonable to translate it that the women said it. However, the word for town used (eir ? I made the transliteration up - ayin hireq yod resh) is feminine, so it could just as easily mean the inhabitants of the city generally.
But the rule in Hebrew is generally, if you're describing a group of people and at least one of them is male, you describe it with male pronomials. It isn't really a sticking point with me - if you get the idea that even though they've been gone for ten years or more, the people still recognise Naomi, that'll do.
vs 20
Again, the tenses here a problematic. It could be "has dealt bitterly with me", or it could be "is treating me bitterly". The question of whether it is continuous or not is at stake, and it is actually kinda more important than your regular "Eh, who cares?" translation issue, because it could have bearing on the kind of bitterness and whinging that Naomi (Mara) is doing.
Some say (and no doubt you've heard this in church before) that Mara gets all bitter because she thinks God hates her and now she has put herself in a position against God. However, we also have to understand that wailing and lamentation, even questioning that actions of God, is normal piestic practice in Middle Eastern society. Witness the psalms - and we never call David a God-hater.
Whether it's one or the other will always be debated I think - after all, the narrator stays fairly silent on this, although God does end up blessing Mara (yes, I just ruined the ending).
Another interesting little tidbit here is that the word for Almighty, shaddai, is pretty much a total mystery with regards to its roots. No doubt many a scholar has postulated, but there's not much to base it on. Apparently.
vs 21
Don't miss the irony here. This book is chock full of it. Naomi's family left the promised land because of a famine. Hell, they left a town called "House of Bread" because of a famine and went to a foreign land. They all died, and now she returns because the food has returned to the promised land. But for Naomi, even though she was starving, she left Bethlehem "full" and now returns "empty".
The word afflicted here is problematic. The actual word can mean both "afflicted/humbled", or it can hold a very specific legal meaning which is "to testify against". Interestingly, from what I have been told, following simple scribal rules for translation would mean that the more complex one should hold over the simple, so the testify against should hold - but the (T)NIV doesn't translate it that way. But don't worry - the KJV and NASB translations do.
One interesting thing I will point out is that the word "evil" doesn't pop up here at all in the translations, but it is there in the text. Basically, the word evil (ra'a) means "evil" whenever a person does something evil, but whenever God does something evil (like in this verse) it always means misfortune or calamity. I say "mean" - I mean "is translated".
vs 22
A fairly good end to the opening act of the story, really. We know the main characters (bar one - love interest to enter stage right). We know their situation. All we need is a song and the first bit of the opera is done.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Cop out (otherwise known as Ruth chapter 1)
Yes, I am doing Ruth because I am currently translating Ruth in Hebrew. You wanna fight about it? Romans went for aaaages!
This will be funny, actually. Now that I've studied a little Hebrew, I can almost begin to give opinions as to what I think of the translations and have it mean something.
Almost.
vs 1
You will notice that only the KJV says "When the judges judged". The thing about the word for "judges" is that it can just as easily mean "leaders". The verb form takes the same root as the noun, and so you end up with judges judging, but it could really be just as well interpreted as any of the other translations' words. Judges is traditional because of the book of judges.
It is actually quite interesting how close to the original the translation is. At least, in simple clauses like this one.
The land, by the way, is Israel. Basically, if "the land" isn't specified in the OT, it's Israel.
vs 2
Almost all of these names are well transliterated. The only one that is weird, oddly, is Naomi - which is really No-omi.
vs 3
Why is this important? Because a wife without a husband is a tragic thing. But hey, at least she has two sons to look after her.
vs 4
Again, the names are pretty good - but it's Root really (of course, that's just according to what I've learned). And calling your daughter Root in this day and age - well, need I say more.
vs 5
Oops, there goes her sons too. Moab's a dangerous place. Naomi is now well and truly very poor. Men bring in the bacon, remember (odd turn of phrase when used about Jews, really), so without them women are pretty much poverty stricken.
vs 6
Home being Bethlehem.
vs 7
Her daughters-in-law (a bloody difficult word, by the way) go with her, and that's a little odd. I mean, the rules were that if Naomi had any more sons, they would get to marry them. But Naomi is old, and she's not likely to get married again. Not only that, but they were leaving to go live in a land that wasn't all that fond of Moabites, because they were foreigners.
vs 8
Important sidenote: you will see that Naomi tells them to go to their mother's house, not their father's house - that is a very female point-of-view for those days. This (and other things in Ruth) has led some scholars to suggest that Ruth was written by a woman.
Notice also that Naomi believes full well that it is possible for the LORD to be able to bless and look after these two women - neither of whom are Jews, and neither of whom would be living in Israel. That is a very strong faith for a time when people didn't really seem to understand God that well.
vs 9
TNIV seems to have a misprint - "Good-by". Apparently she must have been a pretty good mum-in-law, because they don't want to leave her! Perhaps they also realise that there is little waiting for them back in Moab.
vs 10
So, instead, they will go back to be with her people. Now, it could be that they thought that she had some sort of relatives that they could marry.
vs 11
Naomi deals with the first thing first - she's not going to have any more kids, so she can't produce husbands for them. This just shows you how much a woman was valueless without her husband.
This will be funny, actually. Now that I've studied a little Hebrew, I can almost begin to give opinions as to what I think of the translations and have it mean something.
Almost.
vs 1
You will notice that only the KJV says "When the judges judged". The thing about the word for "judges" is that it can just as easily mean "leaders". The verb form takes the same root as the noun, and so you end up with judges judging, but it could really be just as well interpreted as any of the other translations' words. Judges is traditional because of the book of judges.
It is actually quite interesting how close to the original the translation is. At least, in simple clauses like this one.
The land, by the way, is Israel. Basically, if "the land" isn't specified in the OT, it's Israel.
vs 2
Almost all of these names are well transliterated. The only one that is weird, oddly, is Naomi - which is really No-omi.
vs 3
Why is this important? Because a wife without a husband is a tragic thing. But hey, at least she has two sons to look after her.
vs 4
Again, the names are pretty good - but it's Root really (of course, that's just according to what I've learned). And calling your daughter Root in this day and age - well, need I say more.
vs 5
Oops, there goes her sons too. Moab's a dangerous place. Naomi is now well and truly very poor. Men bring in the bacon, remember (odd turn of phrase when used about Jews, really), so without them women are pretty much poverty stricken.
vs 6
Home being Bethlehem.
vs 7
Her daughters-in-law (a bloody difficult word, by the way) go with her, and that's a little odd. I mean, the rules were that if Naomi had any more sons, they would get to marry them. But Naomi is old, and she's not likely to get married again. Not only that, but they were leaving to go live in a land that wasn't all that fond of Moabites, because they were foreigners.
vs 8
Important sidenote: you will see that Naomi tells them to go to their mother's house, not their father's house - that is a very female point-of-view for those days. This (and other things in Ruth) has led some scholars to suggest that Ruth was written by a woman.
Notice also that Naomi believes full well that it is possible for the LORD to be able to bless and look after these two women - neither of whom are Jews, and neither of whom would be living in Israel. That is a very strong faith for a time when people didn't really seem to understand God that well.
vs 9
TNIV seems to have a misprint - "Good-by". Apparently she must have been a pretty good mum-in-law, because they don't want to leave her! Perhaps they also realise that there is little waiting for them back in Moab.
vs 10
So, instead, they will go back to be with her people. Now, it could be that they thought that she had some sort of relatives that they could marry.
vs 11
Naomi deals with the first thing first - she's not going to have any more kids, so she can't produce husbands for them. This just shows you how much a woman was valueless without her husband.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Romans chapter 16
vs 19
Assuming the stories of their obedience are correct, it is indeed worthy of praise. I'm assuming it is obedience to the teachings of Christ.
The next step for them, in Paul's mind, is now wisdom. Not worldly wisdom - he wants them to focus on wisdom regarding good things. There's certainly no point polishing up on your knowledge of evil things - he wants them to remain innocent of those. Unknowing. Let them know what is evil because they know good so well.
vs 20
See, if God is going to crush Satan under your feet, then you don't really need to be that au fait with his movements or tactics. You don't need to study his evil.
The irony that the God "of peace" will go around crushing is not lost on me.
vs 21
Sosipater, you are the man. Interesting that Paul sends the greetings of the Jews first, and specifically too.
vs 22
Tertius was an amenuensis - it's not that Paul couldn't write, but for some reason he didn't. Either he dictated, or he gave Tertius the general idea and told him to write it out (which seems less likely with a book the size of Romans), or perhaps Paul was going blind and was having difficulty writing himself.
vs 23(24)
Ahh, the TNIV is sneaking verse numbers around again!
Where would Christian theology be without Romans 16:24? We would surely all become heathens without it!
Anyway, vs 23 tells us about some very important people. Gaius is the guy who owns the house that Paul stays in while he is, well, wherever he is. I haven't quite worked that out yet. I'm sure some smart scholar as put it all together. Unfortunately, some equally smart scholars have no doubt put their own things together and So Paul was in a dozen places.
Erastus gets his job description thrown in. Why? Don't know. But it sounds like a pretty important person to have in the church. It's like saying "We have the CEO of IBM in our church" I guess. And then there's Quartus. He's just there.
vs 25
Paul does call it "my gospel" here, but I don't think he's laying claim to it as such. I think it's more that he has laid it out so fully in this letter, that he wants to assure them that his gospel, laid out in this letter, is in accordance to God.
vs 26
Interesting that even though God has planned it so that the gentiles can hear the message of salvation and come to faith, he didn't write them a separate book. He made it clear to gentiles through the religious writings of the Jews. This seems to me to cancel out those ideas that some Indian Christians have that the Vedas are their OT - because this verse makes it pretty clear that God uses the OT to reach gentiles.
vs 27
Amen.
Assuming the stories of their obedience are correct, it is indeed worthy of praise. I'm assuming it is obedience to the teachings of Christ.
The next step for them, in Paul's mind, is now wisdom. Not worldly wisdom - he wants them to focus on wisdom regarding good things. There's certainly no point polishing up on your knowledge of evil things - he wants them to remain innocent of those. Unknowing. Let them know what is evil because they know good so well.
vs 20
See, if God is going to crush Satan under your feet, then you don't really need to be that au fait with his movements or tactics. You don't need to study his evil.
The irony that the God "of peace" will go around crushing is not lost on me.
vs 21
Sosipater, you are the man. Interesting that Paul sends the greetings of the Jews first, and specifically too.
vs 22
Tertius was an amenuensis - it's not that Paul couldn't write, but for some reason he didn't. Either he dictated, or he gave Tertius the general idea and told him to write it out (which seems less likely with a book the size of Romans), or perhaps Paul was going blind and was having difficulty writing himself.
vs 23(24)
Ahh, the TNIV is sneaking verse numbers around again!
Where would Christian theology be without Romans 16:24? We would surely all become heathens without it!
Anyway, vs 23 tells us about some very important people. Gaius is the guy who owns the house that Paul stays in while he is, well, wherever he is. I haven't quite worked that out yet. I'm sure some smart scholar as put it all together. Unfortunately, some equally smart scholars have no doubt put their own things together and So Paul was in a dozen places.
Erastus gets his job description thrown in. Why? Don't know. But it sounds like a pretty important person to have in the church. It's like saying "We have the CEO of IBM in our church" I guess. And then there's Quartus. He's just there.
vs 25
Paul does call it "my gospel" here, but I don't think he's laying claim to it as such. I think it's more that he has laid it out so fully in this letter, that he wants to assure them that his gospel, laid out in this letter, is in accordance to God.
vs 26
Interesting that even though God has planned it so that the gentiles can hear the message of salvation and come to faith, he didn't write them a separate book. He made it clear to gentiles through the religious writings of the Jews. This seems to me to cancel out those ideas that some Indian Christians have that the Vedas are their OT - because this verse makes it pretty clear that God uses the OT to reach gentiles.
vs 27
Amen.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Romans chapter 16
vs 10
I'm sure these things would make much more sense if we knew who you guys were. But good on you!
vs 11
If they are not in the Lord, then don't greet them? Seems a bit exclusivist, Paul. I wonder how many doctrines have been based on that pen slip.
vs 12
Yes, that is three women who work so hard in the Lord in Rome that Paul wants them to be listed here for specific greeting.
vs 13
He also goes back in time (well, forward from AD50s) to teach Bill and Ted how to play guitar and save the world.
Seriously, the bit about his mum being a mum to Paul too is very sweet, and very familiar to anyone who's travelled and stayed with other Christians.
vs 14
So now, pretty much greet anyone who goes to church there.
vs 15
Perhaps these are Bible study small groups? Now there's an eisegetical reading if ever I've seen one!
vs 16
This is one of the five verses in the NT that commands this practice. And yet we don't do it! Why, oh literalistists (not a typo), why?
Perhaps because we convert the practice into something culturally acceptable? No, impossible! Kiss, and do it now!
vs 17
Like people who make fun of literalistists.
I think he's thinking here of those people who would teach things like judaising. I think there is a vast, vast wealth of such people in the church today. Which is scary.
vs 18
Of course, when I read that description it makes me wonder if it's not me - may it never be! I think what I want to point out here is that people who follow their own appetites are not always as easy to spot as someone who goes around having sex with everything between drug induced hazes. Some people actually want hard and fast rules and will therefore make them for their own comfort even when they are not biblical.
Non-biblical rules are actually ok, you know. Things like "no muddy feet on the carpet". But it's when you try and give them some sort of biblical strength that you are now a false teacher. Ok, so perhaps walking on someone's carpet with muddy feet is inconsiderate, and Christians should be considerate in love of other people. I'm sure there's a bible verse for such a concept. But attempting to moralise bare or muddy feet as some sort of legalist rule is totally stupid.
I'm sure these things would make much more sense if we knew who you guys were. But good on you!
vs 11
If they are not in the Lord, then don't greet them? Seems a bit exclusivist, Paul. I wonder how many doctrines have been based on that pen slip.
vs 12
Yes, that is three women who work so hard in the Lord in Rome that Paul wants them to be listed here for specific greeting.
vs 13
He also goes back in time (well, forward from AD50s) to teach Bill and Ted how to play guitar and save the world.
Seriously, the bit about his mum being a mum to Paul too is very sweet, and very familiar to anyone who's travelled and stayed with other Christians.
vs 14
So now, pretty much greet anyone who goes to church there.
vs 15
Perhaps these are Bible study small groups? Now there's an eisegetical reading if ever I've seen one!
vs 16
This is one of the five verses in the NT that commands this practice. And yet we don't do it! Why, oh literalistists (not a typo), why?
Perhaps because we convert the practice into something culturally acceptable? No, impossible! Kiss, and do it now!
vs 17
Like people who make fun of literalistists.
I think he's thinking here of those people who would teach things like judaising. I think there is a vast, vast wealth of such people in the church today. Which is scary.
vs 18
Of course, when I read that description it makes me wonder if it's not me - may it never be! I think what I want to point out here is that people who follow their own appetites are not always as easy to spot as someone who goes around having sex with everything between drug induced hazes. Some people actually want hard and fast rules and will therefore make them for their own comfort even when they are not biblical.
Non-biblical rules are actually ok, you know. Things like "no muddy feet on the carpet". But it's when you try and give them some sort of biblical strength that you are now a false teacher. Ok, so perhaps walking on someone's carpet with muddy feet is inconsiderate, and Christians should be considerate in love of other people. I'm sure there's a bible verse for such a concept. But attempting to moralise bare or muddy feet as some sort of legalist rule is totally stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)