Yoo-ki Kim, «The Agent of hesed in Naomi’s Blessing (Ruth 2,20)», Vol. 95 (2014) 589-601
The ambiguity regarding the agent of hesed in Naomi’s blessing in Ru 2,20 has been the focus of interest for commentators, linguists, and translators. For a better resolution of the ambiguity, this article examines the syntactic structure of the sentence, seeks a proper understanding of the significance of «hesed to the dead», and sets the blessing in the context of the whole narrative. The findings of our analysis support the argument that it is Boaz who, in Naomi’s words, performed hesed to the living and dead members of her family.
006_kim_589-601 13/02/15 12:50 Pagina 590
590 YOO-KI KIM
1. Ancient and modern translations
Let us look at the Greek and Latin versions of the blessing.
euvloghto,j evstin tw/| kuri,w| o[ti ouvk evgkate,lipen to. e;leoj auvtou/
meta. tw/n zw,ntwn kai. meta. tw/n teqnhko,twn (LXX)
Blessed is he to the Lord because he did not abandon his mercy with
the living and with the dead.
benedictus sit a Domino quoniam eandem gratiam quam praebuerat
vivis servavit et mortuis (Vulgate)
Blessed be he to the Lord because the same kindness as he had shown
to the living he kept even to the dead.
Both the versions translate the Hebrew relative pronoun rva as a
causal conjunction (o[ti and quoniam, respectively). The Vulgate seems
to depend on the LXX in some respects, though the latter is the more lit-
eral. To our disappointment, the subject of the subordinate clause is not
specified in either version. B.A. Rebera observes that the LXX “leaves
no doubt” and the Vulgate “unambiguously supports the contention” that
the subject of the Hebrew relative clause (agent of ḥesed) is Boaz, not
YHWH 2. However, without a specified subject, we cannot assert that both
the versions are unambiguous on this matter. Campbell acknowledges that
“the Greek retains the ambiguity […]” 3. Sasson also states that “LXX is
equally as ambiguous as the Hebrew text, and thus offers no succor in
this respect” 4. Aramaic versions do not help in our discussion. While
Targum reproduces the ambiguity of the Hebrew, Peshiṭta leaves out “he
(=Boaz)” in the main clause (“Blessed is the Lord, who has not […]”),
presumably to resolve the ambiguity in favor of YHWH 5.
2
REBERA, “Yahweh or Boaz?”, 324-325.
3
E.F. CAMPBELL, JR., Ruth. A New Translation with Introduction, Notes,
and Commentary (AB 7; Garden City, NY 1975) 106.
4
J. SASSON, Ruth. A New Translation with a Philological Commentary
and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (Sheffield 21989) 60.
5
See M. COHEN, “Ḥesed: Divine or Human? The Syntactic Ambiguity of
Ruth 2:20”, Hazon Nahum. Studies in Jewish Law, Thought, and History Pre-
sented to Dr. Norman Lamm (eds. Y. ELMAN – J.S. GUROCK) (Hoboken, NJ
1997) 11-38, here 21-25.
FOLLOW US