Historical Setting of Ruth

This is the second of two week 5 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Describe the historical setting of the Book of Ruth. Discuss the possible scenarios that hypothesize an early date (~1000-600 BCE) or to a late date (after 500 BCE) for its composition.

The Book of Ruth is set in Bethlehem in Judea during a good harvest season after a time of extended famine.

The text itself starts "During the days when Judges ruled" (Ruth 1:1a CEB), this sets an earliest possible date of sometime after Saul's reign. However, it ends with a genealogy that leads to David, which sets David's reign as the earliest possible date. (I think you can argue that's a later addition, but a couple generations is still in the early window.)

The language used is often representative of the earlier window. However, it contains some grammar and idioms representative of later Biblical Hebrew. The author may have attempted to use archaic language as a stylistic element but did so imperfectly, resulting in some then contemporary usage mixed in. Eskenazi argues for intentional archicisms by pointing out that the older language mainly occurs in the dialog of the older generation (Naomi, Boaz). Fentress-Williams mentions another explanation, the story could have circulated orally during the earlier period and been written down later.

Ruth is sometimes called the first short story and Alter reports that the later period was marked by "the veritable explosion of new narrative genres," which would make a new literary form more likely. However, we don't have to consider Ruth to be a short story, it has a lot of elements in common with folk tales, a type of story often referred to as "timeless." 

Ruth could be viewed as apologia for King David's mixed ethnic background, a task that would only have been necessary during the early period, because by the later period he was uniformly revered. This is in line with Rabbinic sources that attribute Ruth, along with Judges and Samuel to the prophet Samuel, possibly in response to a controversy about David's qualifications for kingship. (Eskenazi) At the same time, it's possible that his mixed background was a possibly open, but unspoken secret during his lifetime. (Fentress-Williams) On the other hand, Ruth could be a response to the post-exilic passages in Ezra where foreign wives and mixed children were to be sent away, offering a defense of such family members.

This is by no means an exhaustive discussion of the evidence regarding dating this book, but I feel like other scenarios either depend on one of the above  or reflect the same issues in a slightly different form.

Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Writings. W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn, and Tikva Simone Frymer-Kensky, editors. Ruth רות: the traditional Hebrew text with the new JPS translation. 1st ed, Jewish Publication Society, 2011.

Fentress-Williams, Judy. Ruth. Abingdon Press, 2012.

The Temple in Kings versus Chronicles

This is the first of two week 5 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Outline the major differences between the story of the building of the Jerusalem Temple as told in 1 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles. Infer the reasons for those differences based on your reading of Guenther.

There were 3 major differences between these two stories that immediately stood out to me. 

 Chronicles contains more of a focus on David's role in planning and conceiving the temple, while Kings moves the focus to Solomon carrying out the plan. Both include Solomon's words of blessing and prayer at the temple dedication, although Chronicles includes more detail.

 God appears in dramatic and miraculous ways in the Chronicles account, both during the dedication ("a cloud filled the Lord’s temple. The priests were unable to carry out their duties on account of the cloud because the Lord’s glory filled God’s temple" (2 Chronicles 5:13b-14 NRSV, this is also 1 Kings 8:10-11) and "As soon as Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the entirely burned offering and the sacrifices, while the Lord’s glory filled the temple. 2 The priests were unable to enter the Lord’s temple because the Lord’s glory had filled the Lord’s temple. " (2 Chronicles 7:1-2)) and later in a detailed vision to Solomon while dreaming. (A short summary of a similar vision appears at a different point in Kings.) 

Another difference that made an impression on me was who did the manual labor. Both versions report that conscripted workers were used. However, in Kings they appear to have been chosen equitably from the entire population. In Chronicles, they were mostly or only immigrants depending on how you interpret the description. While this seems minor, I think there is an important difference between "we labored with our own hands to create this, each taking on their fair share" and "we forced others to make this for us, at little real sacrifice on our part." I think you could argue that working on a community project such as the temple could be a path to respect from and inclusion in the greater community, but we don't see any evidence of that happening.

A more obvious, but in my opinion likely minor difference is that Kings includes more detail about the amazing craftsmanship of the items in the temple and attributes the work to specific craftspeople, while Chronicles attributes the making to Solomon, while at the same time being clear that it was made at his direction. (As an aside, I think this is an important possibility to remember when we see authorship of Biblical texts attributed to David and Solomon, like the temple fittings they may have been commissioned.) I think both authors were trying to give an accurate picture of both the scope of work involved and help their readers form a mental portrait of the glory, beauty and craftsmanship of the temple and that the differences have more to do with the authors' respective writing styles than any intended difference in message.

Gunther posits that the reason for the differences between these two accounts is that they are "historical interpretations" by two different authors, with two different viewpoints and goals. He believes that Kings is part of a longer story (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) by a single author, the Deuteronomist. "The Deuteronomist traces the story of the people under the terms of the Sinaitic covenant, emphasizing Israel’s obligation to observe all the commandments, to reverence the LORD alone and to worship him only at the central, authorized shrine." Before going on to Gunther's view of the author of Chronicles, I want to point out that the inherent respect for a "central, authorized shrine" would be higher for one that was built by the community and thus belonged to "all of us." This may explain why the Deuteronomist described the conscription process as random and egalitarian.

Getting to the author of Chronicles, Gunther believes "the Chronicler is concerned to demonstrate the continuity of God’s redemptive activity from creation to the time of the restoration following the Babylonian exile."  This continuity of activity explains why God's activities in Chronicles are more obvious and dramatic than in Kings. The Chronicler holds up David as the ideal king and ruler and is equally complementary of his son and heir Solomon. (Gunther also mentions that the Chronicler is more concerned with kings being right with God (or not) at the end of their life and values repentance, it would be hard to hold David as an ideal without doing so.) Valuing David so highly explains why the Chronicler's story of the temple starts with David making the plans and handing them over to Solomon. This combined with his strong approval for Solomon explains why he speaks of Solomon as the doer of tasks that Solomon merely commissioned - if Solomon "made the pilar" (or whatever) when actually he commissioned it; David "made the temple" by setting his son up to build it. This may also explain his pointing out the fact that immigrants did the manual labor - if it wasn't "us", it was Solomon and by extension David. If it was "us" (randomly chosen people of Israel), then "we" deserve some of the glory. 

In both cases, the contents of Solomon's speeches and letters, the reply from the King of Tyre (particularly in Chronicles), and God's word in the vision are used to further the viewpoints of the authors. This doesn't necessarily make either source more or less accurate, these are at best summaries of what was said and naturally, what is important to the summarizer is going to make a summary. God's vision to Solomon is particularly illustrative of this. In Kings, the description of the vision is very short and basically a summary of the Deuteronomist's viewpoint. "The Lord’s word came to Solomon, Regarding this temple that you are building: If you follow my laws, enact my regulations, and keep all my commands faithfully, then I will fulfill for you my promise that I made to your father David. I will live among the Israelites. I won’t abandon my people Israel."(1 Kings 6:11-13 NRSV) However, the Chronicler ends the story of the temple with a much more detailed dream vision.  It is the end of this vision that I want to highlight, 2 Chronicles 7 19-22 NRSV:

But if any of you ever turn away from and abandon the regulations and commands that I have given you, and go to serve other gods and worship them,  then I will uproot you from my land that I gave you, and I will reject this temple that I made holy for my name. I will make it a joke, insulted by everyone.  Everyone who passes by this temple—so lofty now—will be shocked and will wonder, Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and temple? The answer will come, Because they abandoned the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt. They embraced other gods, worshipping and serving them. This is why God brought all this disaster on them.

Remember that the Chronicler is writing after the temple has been destroyed and trying to show that God is still actively working for the audience's redemption. By setting a reason why God would allow the temple to be destroyed in the story of the temple's creation, the Chronicler is able to set up even the destruction of the temple as God being present.

Finally, I want to say that I find it interesting that Christians have issues with "inconsistencies" between the histories in Kings versus Chronicles (and I have seen this myself), when we have 4 Gospels with similar parallels and differences that we usually manage to ignore.

Guenther, Allen R. “Kings and Chronicles: Interpreting Historical Interpretation.”  Direction Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, Apr. 1982, pp. 4–15, https://directionjournal.org/11/2/kings-and-chronicles-interpreting.html.

Fourth Sunday in Advent - Year B

This week's lectionary readings are:

• 2 Samuel 7:1-11, 16


• Luke 1:46b-55 ( or Psalm 89:1-4, 19-26)


• Romans 16:25-27


• Luke 1:26-38

In the Samuel reading, I was struck by the idea that God lives and wants to live in a temporary and portable structure, yet is happy for us to live in more permanent and stable structures. For me, this actually reinforces the idea that God is everywhere - or where He is needed - not just in a temple or church. And that God is eternal. Because, even a "permanent" house only lasts for some hundreds of years (and stays in one place.) A temporary shelter can be rebuilt and repaired in place to place forever.

The second Luke reading was the most advent-like reading, in my mind, of any that we have read this advent. I read somewhere that Mary's last line in the reading - "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38 WEB) - is very similar to what the prophets have said when they accepted their duties. This is a much stronger role for Mary than usually proposed, and I think well deserved. Mary has always struck me as a very strong woman and well worthy of being a role mode. However you interpret her story, strictly secularly or purely religious or anywhere in between, she was a strong and amazing woman.

The art this week is from my new favorite artist, He Qi. His website is full of amazing religious paintings and embroideries that, to me, strike a strong balance between historical accuracy, expected symbolism, and modern accessibility.

Blogged with the Flock Browser