006_kim_589-601 19/02/15 10:37 Pagina 600 600 YOO-KI KIM 3,10), according to Meinhold, show “die […] festgestellte, ursprünglich profane Verwendung von ḥesed” 44. The latter occurrence (3,10) belongs to the secular domain since it is about Ruth. The former (1,8) mentions YHWH’s ḥesed, but it is only a wish while the actual ḥesed has been done by Orpah and Ruth 45. One might propose that, unlike the other cases, di- vine ḥesed is meant in 2,20. Yet Naomi has better reason to praise Boaz for his kindness toward her family at this moment of the story. As Freed- man notes, Naomi is characterized as having “a uniformly negative opin- ion of God” 46. Her bitterness (1,20-21) would finally be resolved with Ruth’s marriage to Boaz and the subsequent birth of a child at the end. In addition, it is not Naomi’s relationship with YHWH that is in focus. As K.M. Saxegaard rightly states, “the three occurrences of hesed are mainly connected to human characters” 47. In the Book of Ruth, direct divine intervention or communication between God and human beings is generally avoided (e.g. 2,3). Rather, the story focuses, at least on the surface, on the faithfulness of the protagonists, especially Ruth and Boaz, toward one another. Therefore, the identification of the agent of ḥesed in Ru 2,20 with Boaz is congruent with the theme of human ḥesed conspicuous in the Book of Ruth 48. V. Conclusion Our investigation not only points to the more probable option between the two possibilities but also elucidates the role of Naomi’s blessing in the context of the whole narrative. One may argue that the ambiguity resides in the narrator’s intention 49. However, the ambiguity in question originates from syntactic structures and must not be in the author’s mind. A careful ancient reader probably understood the intended meaning while possibly enjoying the ambiguity for literary and theological purposes. Though YHWH may be implicit in the background, it is Boaz who did not 44 A. MEINHOLD, “Theologische Schwerpunkte im Buch Ruth und ihr Ge- wicht für seine Datierung”, TZ 32 (1976) 133 n. 46. 45 Clark describes Ruth and Orpah’s ḥesed as “functional” and YHWH’S as “ostensive”. See CLARK, The Word Hesed, 167-168. 46 A.D. FREEDMAN, God as an Absent Character in Biblical Hebrew Nar- rative. A Literary-Theoretical Study (Studies in Biblical Literature 82; New York – Washington, DC 2005) 210. 47 SAXEGAARD, Character Complexity, 187. 48 According to Zobel, of the 245 attestations of ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible only about 63 belong to the secular domain. See H.-J. ZOBEL, “ds,x, ḥeseḏ”, TDOT 5 (1986) 44-64, here 45. 49 COLLINS, “Ambiguity”, 100 n. 14.