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 19/02/15 10:32 Pagina 592
592 YOO-KI KIM
2. The ambiguity of the sentence in Hebrew
~ytmh-taw ~yyxh-ta wdsx bz[-al rva hwhyl awh $wrb (Ru 2,20)
The relative pronoun (rva) and the pronominal suffix (w-) are coref-
erential. The problem is the existence of two possible antecedents for
these grammatical elements, i.e., “YHWH (hwhy)” and “he (awh)”. As we
have seen above in the discussion of modern translations, consensus has
not been reached on this problem. Even the medieval Jewish tradition
does not offer a unified voice. While Yephet, the tenth-century Karaite
exegete, was open to both syntactic options, Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and
Rashi (1040-1105) differed from each other, the former in favor of Boaz
and the latter in favor of YHWH 8. Recently Rebera has made a strong case
in favor of Boaz as the referent, persuading commentators such as
Hubbard 9. Bush also states that “it seems unquestionable that Boaz is the
antecedent […]” 10. In addition, LaCocque judges that “the problem seems
resolved […]” 11. However, the alternative opinion in favor of YHWH is
still being firmly supported 12. Furthermore, some scholars, instead of fo-
cusing on the search for the referent, turn their attention to the ambiguity
of the blessing 13. There is no proof that the author intentionally meant
8
See COHEN, “Ḥesed”, 13-21.
9
REBERA, “Yahweh or Boaz?” 317-327; R.L. HUBBARD, JR., The Book of
Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI 1988) 186.
10
F. BUSH, Ruth, Esther (WBC 9; Dallas, TX 1996) 136.
11
A. LACOCQUE, Ruth. A Continental Commentary (trans. K.C. HANSON)
(Continental Commentaries; Minneapolis, MN 2004) 77 n. 37. For a recent work
that follows this option, see P.H.W. LAU, Identity and Ethics in the Book of Ruth.
A Social Identity Approach (BZAW 416; Berlin – New York 2010) 129.
12
See, e.g., G.R. CLARK, The Word Hesed in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTS
157; Sheffield 1993) 200-201; K. NIELSEN, Ruth (OTL; Louisville, KY 1997)
62-63; I.M. DUGUID, Esther and Ruth (Reformed Expository Commentary;
Phillipsburg, NJ 2005) 162; I. FISCHER, Rut (HTKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau
– Basel – Wien 2001) 189; M. KÖHLMOOS, Ruth (ATD 9,3; Göttingen 2010)
49; T.C. ESKENAZI – T. FRYMER-KENSKY, Ruth (JPS Bible Commentary;
Philadelphia, PA 2011) 43.
13
For example, see K.D. SAKENFELD, Ruth (IBC; Louisville, KY 1999)
47; C.J. COLLINS, “Ambiguity and Theology in Ruth: Ruth 1:21 and 2:20”,
Presbyterion 19.2 (1993) 97-102; M.E.W. THOMPSON, “New Life Amid the
Alien Corn: The Book of Ruth”, EvQ 65 (1993) 205, 210; COHEN, “Ḥesed”,
32-38; H. ANGEL, “A Midrashic View of Ruth: Amidst a Sea of Ambiguity”,
JBQ 33 (2005) 91-99; R.D. HOLMSTEDT, Ruth. A Handbook on the Hebrew Text
(Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew Bible; Waco, TX 2010) 142; K.M. SAXEGAARD,
Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth (Tübingen 2010) 168-169.
FOLLOW US