"Your People Shall Be My People": Family and Covenant in Ruth 1 :1 6-1 7

MARK S. SMITH
New York University New York, NY 10012

RUTH 1:16-17 BELONGS to one of the most inspiring expressions of interper sonal solidarity found in the Bible. In view of the "moving rhetoric" 1 of these verses, Wilhelm Rudolph considers them the high point of the first chapter.2 In the emotional dialogue between Naomi and Ruth, with each woman seemingly as determined as the other, it is Ruth's words in the final round, in vv. 16-17, that dramatically recast the terms of their relationship in a form often regarded as poetic.3 At the heart of these verses are lines that may be read as three bicola:4

This essay is dedicated to my in-laws, Sonia and Ted Bloch, inspirations to me in many ways. I wish to thank Daniel Fleming and William Holladay for offering comments on an earlier draft of this essay. I am also grateful to Linda Day for her help. 1 So Adele Berlin, "Ruth," m Harper s Bible Commentary (ed. James L. Mays; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988)263. 2 Wilhelm Rudolph, DasBuchRuth, DasHoheLied, Die Klagelieder ( 17/1-3; Gtersloh: Mohn, 1962) 42. 3 For example, the commentaries of Rudolph (Das Buch Ruth, 40) and Edward Campbell (Ruth- A new translation with introduction and commentary [AB 7; New York: Doubleday, 1975] 61-62, 74) lay out w . 16-17 in poetic lines. For a characterization of these verses as a "very lyrical section," see Jack M. Sasson, Ruth A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd ed.; Biblical Seminar 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989) 31, who cites Paul Humbert, "Art et leon de l'histoire de Ruth," in Opuscules d'un Hbrasant (Neuchtel: Secrtariat de l'Universit, 1958) 83-110, esp. 87-88. Note also Kirsten Nielsen, Ruth- A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997) 49. For further comments on the structure of this discourse, see Irmtraud Fischer, Rut (HTKAT; Freiburg/Basel/ Vienna: Herder, 2001) 143-44. 4 For textual variants, see the commentaries; none recommends emendation.

242

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" For to where5 you go, I will go; And in where you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your god will be my god.6 In where you die, I will die, And there I will be buried.

243

f?K ^ n TtfiX ^ T X TO itf Km "* "|37 max 'man iff X3 inpx Dtfl

Modern readers readily and rightly grasp the affective dimension of these words, which is evident from the context. At the same time, for the book's ancient audi ence Ruth's words contain a conceptual sensibility that informs their affective power. After a brief survey of current proposals in the following section, I venture to uncover the ancient sensibility of Ruth 1:16-17 through an examination of bib lical and extrabiblical parallels. I. Current Proposals If the relationship of Naomi and Ruth has been severed socially by the death of the man who drew these two women together in the first place, then how would the new relationship as expressed by Ruth's words be understood by an ancient audience? There have been essentially three approaches to this question. First, much of Jewish tradition has viewed Ruth's words as an expression of conversion.7 Scholars who address this view largely reject it. Rudolph, Edward
Most render the forms of TtfiO/TtfX as relatives ("wherever"); see BDB 82, #4b. The trans lation here, presupposing "in the place (where)," reflects an effort to capture what may be regarded as either an ellipsis for "the place where" (as in the expression # D1pQ3 in the parallel in 2 Sam 15:21 discussed below) or the older locative sense of the word 1WN. In either case, the locative sense seems applicable in this instance as indicated by DEH in the final line. The older locative sense of the relatives is attested in the development of the noun **atr, "place" (Ugaritic atr\ Aramaic Datra) into a relative, as attested in KTU 2.39.33b-35: 3adm 2atr Ht bqt w stn ly, "As for the person, wher ever he is, find (him) and send him/it (word of him, in a letter) to me." For the general understand ing, see Dennis Pardee, "A Further Note on PRU V, No. 60," UF 13 (1982) 151-56, here 152, especially his comment: "If these readings are correct, it becomes clear that *atr is not functioning as a relative pronoun, though the syntactic function of the word here is the very one that led to its becoming a relative pronoun (accusative of a noun meaning 'place' = 'in whatever place' 'wher ever' 'which')" (p. 156). For comparisons of this passage with EA [El-Amarna tablets] 143: 7 and its parallel use of Akkadian asar, see Anson Ramey, "Observations on Ugaritic Grammar," UF 3 (1971) 151-72, here 162; and Josef Tropper. Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000) 798. For further discussions, see UT 19.422; Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 558, 595, 819, 884, 905, 909; and Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaqun Sanmartn, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, part 1, pfa/i/uj-k] (Handbuch der Orientalistik 67; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003) 127. Ruth is not clearly referring to "God" by name, but seems to be represented as speaking generically with respect to Naomi's "god." See 1:15. 7 See the Targum to Ruth 1:16, discussed in Campbell, Ruth, 80, and Nielsen, Ruth, 49. For
6
5

244

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007

Campbell, and Adele Berlin, for example, mention the idea of conversion,8 which they resist in view of the relatively minor role that religious observance and belief play in the text. Berlin's comments nicely capture the situation at this point in the book: In what amounts to a change of identity, from Moabite to Israelite (for there was as yet no formal procedure or even the theoretical possibility for religious conversion), Ruth adopts the people and God of Naomi. Religion was bound up with ethnicity in biblical times; each people had its land and its gods (cf. Mie. 4:5), so that to change religion meant to change nationality.9 As reflected in this quotation, modern commentators generally reject that the notion of conversion in its traditional form is represented here. As a modification of the traditional idea of conversion, Gillis Gerleman sees a sort of "judaization" of Ruth expressed in her words.10 As noted below, this formulation arguably denotes a shift at a higher level of sociopolitical complexity than the book itself expresses about Ruth's linkage to Naomi. Other commentators who also see conversion as the central issue in Ruth, however, would see the book as a polemic against the need for foreign women to convert. As Moshe Weinfeld characterizes this older view, the book was viewed as a "protest against the Ezra-Nehemiah attitude toward foreign women (Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13:23-29)," but he notes that this view "has no basis at all" in the text.11 Recently, the idea of Ruth as a polemic against the need to convert has been advanced in a modified form by Yairah Amit. She suggests that the references to Ruth as a Moabite evoke an "implicit polemic"12 against the "Ezra-Nehemiah attitude toward foreign women." By definition, detection of "implicit" phenomena is difficult to confirm or disprove. Although one may remain open to this approach, it only partially addresses the terms of Ruth's speech in 1:16-17; indeed, Amit barely mentions these verses. This issue may lie in the background of the book, but it is nevertheless insufficient for understanding the terms of Ruth 1:16-17. In sum, neither approach to Rutheither pro-conversion or anti-conversionhas met with general acceptance. Conversion (or "judaizafurther discussion and textual citations of Ruth as a convert, see Aaron Rothkoff. '"Ruth. Book of: In the Aggadah,'* EncJud 14. 522-23. See also Moshe David Hem "Ruth Rabbani EncJud 14. 524. 8 Rudolph. Das Buch Ruth, 43; Campbell Ruth, 80; Berlin. "Ruth/ 5 263. 9 Berlin, "Ruth." 263. 10 Gillis Gerleman, Rut Das Hohelied (BKAT 18; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965) 20; and discussed favorably by Nielsen, Ruth. 50. 11 Moshe Weinfeld, '"Ruth, Book of," EncJud 14. 522. For examples of this view and extensive discussion, see Paul Joon. Ruth Commentaire philologique et exgtique (2nd ed.: Subsidia Biblica 9: Rome: Biblical Institute, 1993) 4-6. For a useful, cautionary discussion about the situation in Ezra-Nehemiah, see Gary Knoppers, ""Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diver sity in the Genealogy of Judah," JBL 120 (2001 ) 15-30. 12 Yairah Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative (trans. J. Chipman; Biblical Interpre tation Series 25; Leiden Boston Cologne: Brill, 2000) 84-87.

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE"

245

tion") as such does not appear to constitute the basic horizons of the terms in Ruth's speech. Second, some scholars concentrate on the significance of various elements of 1:16-17 as expressions of cementing bonds. In 1:15-19a, what he nicely calls "the pledge," Jack Sasson comments on the speech-act of "your god will be my own" (as he translates the line): "This usage suggests not only the act of worshiping, but also alludes to all the deeds and acts which cement a bond between individuals and their deities."13 Marjo C. A. Korpel examines v. 17a and specifically its reference to death, but otherwise she offers little discussion of the relationship between the two women.14 Athalya Brenner sees a contractual arrangement between the two women by which Ruth pledges labor to Naomi as a "female foreign worker" in exchange for benefits issuing from her new social situation in Bethlehem.13 On the whole, these reflections capture different aspects of Ruth's WOrds, but they do not address the larger conceptual framework informing her speech. A third approach characterizes the bonds involved in terms of covenantal language. Attentive to the use oihesed in Ruth 1:8-9; 2:20; and 3:10, Campbell comments on 1:6-22: "The striking thing about the theology of the Ruth book, however, is that it brings the lofty concept of covenant into vital contact with day-to-day life, not at the royal court or in the temple, but right here in the narrow compass of village life."16 Alice L. Laffey characterizes Ruth's words as an expression of "covenant fidelity."17 Andr Lacocque has also drawn attention to the use oihesed in 2:20 in his characterization of Ruth's change in status in 1:16-17 as one of "voluntary displacement."18 He also points to 2 Sam 15:21 as a parallel to 1:16: "wher13 14

Sasson, Ruth, 29. Marjo C. A. Korpel, The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Pencope 2; Assen: Van Gorcum, 2001) 80: "Like Naomi, she defies God, challenging him to end her life prematurely, as he ended the lives of Ehmelech, Mahlon and Chihon." l - Athalya Brenner, "Ruth as a Foreign Worker and the Politics of Exogamy," in Ruth and Esther A Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second Series) (ed. Athalya Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 159-62. For anachronism in Brenner's reading, see Roland Boer, "Culture, Ethics and Identity in Reading Ruth: A Response to Donaldson, Dube, McKinlay and Brenner," in Ruth and Esther A Feminist Companion, 163-70, here 164. For further discussion of Brenner's proposal, see Victor H Matthews, Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary: Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 222. For possible scenarios that may have induced Ruth's choice, see Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Ruth (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1999) 33-34. 16 Campbell, Ruth, 80. The expression oihesed is emphasized also in Nielsen. Ruth, 50; and in Katnna J. A. Larkin, Ruth and Esther (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1996) 50-51. Campbell also views the use of *lpD in 1:6 in covenantal terms. 17 Alice L. Laffey. "Ruth," NJBC, 1. 555. 18 Andr Lacocque, Ruth. A Continental Commentary (trans. K. C. Hanson; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 52-54.

246

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007

ever my lord the king is, whether for death or for life, there your servant shall be." 1 9 The loyalty posed here by Ittai to David in vassalage terms ("your servant") does echo Ruth's expression. As suggested below, this parallel reflects the type of terms for relationships that are expressed in treaties and covenants. Other terms associated with covenant in the larger context would tend to support this approach. In Ruth 2:11, when Boaz recounts what Ruth has done, he acknowledges "how you left your father and your mother and the land of your birth and you came to a people that you had not known ever before" (71 TWT'V ItfK D5T7X ^\ ). The first part of the last, independent clause echoes Ruth's own pledge in 1:16, while the following, dependent clause adds the covenant/treaty notion of "knowledge." The people and/or god whom one does (or does not) know is a mark of covenantal relations. In treaty terms, the verb means to recognize politically (cf. Akkadian idu),20 while at the level of the family, the idiom of knowledge may express "covenantal" recognition across family lines.21 Within the immediate com pass of w . 16-17, however, neither Campbell nor Laffey points to evidence that would confirm their characterizations of Ruth's words as covenantal. In contrast, Tikva Frymer-Kensky, in her characterization of the words of Ruth's speech, observes that they "resonate with the Bible's cadence of covenant and contract."22 In support of her view, she cites 1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7, as well as 2 Chr 18:3.23 The parallels that Frymer-Kensky cites have received little notice in the schol arly literature. Moreover, Frymer-Kensky does not fully work out the significance of their impact for the meaning of Ruth's speech, both in its immediate context and in the context of the book as a whole. In addition, there are further extrabiblical parallels of treaty language worth comparingand contrastingwith Ruth 1:16-17. These parallels in the biblical corpus and beyond help to indicate the "covenantal" language in 1:16-17 and how it might have been understood. For
Andr Lacocque, The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subvershe Figures in Israels Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990) 111-12; idem. Ruth, 52. 20 See F. C. Fensham, "The Treaty between the Israelites and Tynans," in Congress Volume Rome 1968 (ed. J. A. Emerton; VTSup 17; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 71-87. here 73-76: Herbert Hufmon. 'The Treaty Background of Hebrew yda^ BASOR 181 (1966) 31-37: Herbert Hufmon and Simon B. Parker, "A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew yda<=r BASOR 184 (1966) 36-38; and Paul Kalluveettil. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AnBib 88: Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. 1982) 84. Fensham concentrates on the use of *$V in 1 Kgs 5:17. For the application of the root to deities, see Deut 32:17 (and \erses that may be dependent, Deut 11:28 and 13:3). For a Ugaritic example, see KTU1.114.6, 7. 21 Robert Alter (The Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic, 1981] 59) comments on Ruth 2:11: "Ruth is conceived by the author as a kind of matriarch by adoption." 22 Tik\ a Frymer-Kensky, Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New York: Schocken. 2002) 241. 23 Ibid. I came upon this study only after the completion of this essay: I had already noted the parallels from the Books of Kings but not the one from 2 Chronicles.
19

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE" 247 these reasons, it appears appropriate to explicate further Frymer-Kensky's observation. The following discussion is divided into three parts. In the next section, I identify biblical and extrabiblical treaty parallels to Ruth 1:16-17 in terms of structure, content, and worldview. In the subsequent section, I probe the model of family on which these covenantal expressions are based. Here I point out that it is not covenant that is the lofty concept brought down to routine village life in the book of Ruth, as Campbell understands the situation; instead, family relations are being expressed by Ruth, and it is the model of family extended across family lines that is being expressed in treaty and covenant language. Once the conceptual relationship between family language and covenant has been clarified, in the final part of the essay I engage the analysis of the biblical parallels to Ruth 1:16-17 and their implications for understanding the relationship between Naomi and Ruth. This conclusion of the study confirms what I think many modern readers intuitively grasp: with her words Ruth establishes a family relationship with Naomi that transcends the death of the male who had connected them, and in fact this relationship represents a family tie closer than that expressed by the formal status of former inlaws.24 The parallels in the next section help to locate and clarify this understanding in its ancient context. II. Biblical and Extrabiblical Parallels to Ruth 1:16 Two biblical passages containing wording similar to Ruth 1:16 are 1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7. Both embedded in contexts of international relations (1 Kgs 22:1-4; 2 Kgs 3:4-7), the texts express cooperation between two parties: Three years passed without war between Aram and Israel. And in the third year, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, came down to the king of Israel.2And the king of Israel said to his servants: "Are you aware that Ramot-gilead is ours, yet we do nothing about taking it from the power of the king of Aram?" And he said to Jehoshaphat: "Will you go with me (TIN "pnn) to war at Ramot-gilead?" And Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel: ["I will go up (rfWN) with you;]26
For example, Rebecca Alpert ("Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth," in Reading Ruth Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story [ed. Judith A. Kates and Gail Twersky Reimer; New York: Ballantine, 1994] 91-96, here 94) comments, "Ruth and Naomi are making a commitment to maintain familial connections." 25 On the possible identity of this king as Ahab, see Mordechai Cogan, 1 Kings A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 472, 498. 26 This line, bracketed here, is not in the text. It is arguably implied by the question, and it is attested in the second passage below, in 2 Kgs 3:7. It is added here for the sake of clarifying the force and context of the response.
24

248

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007 Like me, like you ( TE ^"lE!)).27 "ID Like my people, like your people ("|ESD "S73), Like my horses, like your horses (T010D "OIOD)." (1 Kgs 22:1-4)

Now Mesha, king of Moab, was a sheep-breeder,28 and he would pay29 to the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and 100.000 rams in wool. And as soon as Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. And that very day King Jehoram left Samaria and mustered all Israel. And he proceeded30 to send (a message) to Jehoshaphat, king of Judah: "The king of Moab has rebelled against me; Will you go with me ( 7) to Moab for war (against him)?" And he [Jehoshaphat] said: "I will go up (727) [with you]: Like me, like you (T.D MIED). Like my people, like your people ("|E37D *E27D), Like my horses, like your horses (T010D "OIOD)." And he asked: "Which road shall we go up (7273)?"' And he [Jehoram] said: "The road of the wilderness of Edom." (2 Kgs 3:4-7) Both passages present the kings of Israel and Judah preparing to join in war fare against a third monarch, with whom the king of Israel has a dispute. The first case involves a territorial dispute with Aram, the second a rebellion by the king of Moab. In both cases, the king of Israel calls on King Jehoshaphat of Judah for aid, and in both situations Jehoshaphat agrees to help. Both passages presuppose treaty relations between the kings of Judah and Israel, so that one can call on the other in mutual assistance against a third party. Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor note the treaty relations involved here, and they cite biblical parallels (1 Kgs 22:4950; 2 Kgs 8:18; and 2 Chr 18:3). as well as a statement by King Niqmaddu to his Hittite overlord, Shuppiluliuma: "With the enemies of my lord. I am enemy; with his ally, I am ally" (PRUIV, RS 17.340.13).31 Jerome T. Walsh comments on the
" See Judg 8:18 for this syntax: nniD ". So the NJPS translation. For discussion of Mesha as IpZ. see Richard C. Steiner. Stockmen from Tekoa. Sycomores from Sheba (CBQMS 36: Washington. DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2003) 70-87, esp. 77. 85. 29 For the construction of C-stem of -7 2T\ see BDB 999a. =2f. citing "to gi\ e in payment." in 1 Sam 6:8. 17: and "to pay as tribute." in 2 Kgs 3:4: 2 Chr 27:5: cf. 2 Kgs 17:3 and Ps 72:10 (with accusative instead of-7). 30 See Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor. IIKings A new translation w ith introduction and commentary (AB 11; New York: Doubleday, 1988) 44: "the verb halak is used as an auxiliary with the meaning to be aroused to action.'" They cite Samuel David Luzzato on Exod 2:1. and compare Gen 35:22: Deut 17:3: 1 Kgs 16:31: Hos 1:3: and Jer3:8. 31 Cogan and Tadmor, IIKings, 44: cf. Cogan. 1 Kings, 489.
28 2

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE"

249

role of Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:1-4: "Jehoshaphat's deference suggests Judah's sta tus as lesser partner, perhaps even vassal, of Israel." 32 Noting the parallel in 1 Kgs 22:1-4, Christopher T. Begg comments in a similar vein about Jehoshaphat in 2 Kgs 3:7-8: "This exchange suggests that Judah was subordinate to Israel at this time." 33 Cogan, however, would take issue with this understanding of Judah's subordinate status within the treaty relations as expressed in 1 Kgs 22:4. 34 Whatever the details of the actual situation, it is clear to these interpreters that the text uses treaty lan guage, specifically equivalence or identification of resources. To anticipate the final section of this essay, it is the appearance of UV in this usage here that especially resonates with Ruth 1:16. At the same time, it is impor tant to acknowledge the differences in context. In the passages from Kings, this !? is military in character, and so Cogan and Tadmor correctly understand the word as "forces."35 Their translation also makes an effort to capture the force of the - particle: "my forces are as your forces; my horses are as your horses." They cite BDB, in its view that the repeated . . . - . . . - functions "to signify their com pleteness of the correspondency between two objects." 36 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor discuss instances of what they call this "identity construction," in which the two parties named share some predication; as they say, "like father, like son." 37 Neither BDB nor Waltke and O'Connor cite the two Kings passages, but their remarks may permit an inference about the construction in these two instances: the military forces and horses of the two monarchs will fight in unison as if (... -) they are one and the same single resource for this casus belli. Below I will explore the significance of these passages for interpreting Ruth 1:16-17, but it is necessary beforehand to look at the wider context of treaty and covenant at both the royal and family/clan levels. As noted above, Cogan compares the passages from Kings with Ras Shamra (RS) 17.340.13. He is surely correct in noting the treaty relations involved in the texts from Kings and RS 17.340.13; however, the types of treaty discourse differ. Ras Shamra 17.340.13 identifies persons ("with his ally, I am ally"). In contrast, the passages from Kings equate the resources of the two kings; in other words, "what's mine is yours and vice versa." The treaty discourse in the texts from Kings falls under the larger rubric of two parties understanding themselves as a single political entity, in what an important but often overlooked study by Paul Kallu-

Jerome T. Walsh, "1 Kings," NJBC, 1. 174. Christopher T. Begg. "2 Kings,"' NJBC, 1. 175. 34 Cogan, 1 Kings, 489. 35 For this sense of the word, see also L. Kutler. "A Structural Semantic Approach to Israelite Communal Terminology." JANES 14 (1982) 69-77. here 71-72. 36 BDB, 454a. 37 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1990) 203. 204, ##9 and 10.
33

32

250

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007

veettil on the language of treaties presents under the heading: "We are all one."38 He cites two second-millennium Akkadian treaty texts under this rubric. The survey that follows begins with the text most proximate to our passages from Kings, with its explicit expression of shared resources as a representation of "treaty oneness." The list moves to Kalluveettil's second text, followed by three others that identify partners "as one" in various ways. To complement the treaty texts, a couple of letters from the Amarna correspondence that reflect the same conceptual assumptions are added. 1. RS 18.54 A, lines 17'-20' (PRUIV,pp. 228-29): As for me I have said: Everything of my house is yours and everything of your house is mine (gab-bi mar-sl-ti sa b-t-ya a-na ku-n-su-nu mar-s[T-ta] sa b-t-ku-nn att-y[a\). This text between unnamed parties cites an earlier text that expresses treaty relations between them. As the writer calls his addressee, the king of Ugarit, "my brother" (line 7), it is apparent that parity relations are involved. According to Kalluveettil: "The writer... is committed to behave as if they belong to the same family, his possessions really belong to his ally and those of his partner to him."39 Here the parties are only implicitly one, embedded in the notion that their resources are regarded explicitly as a single entity. 2. Mursilis II of Hatti to Talmisharruma of Aleppo in text 6, rev. lines 9-10 (E. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien: Die Staatsvertrge in akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von Boghazki [Boghazki Studien 89; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923] 86-87): May all of us together and our house be one (gab-bi-ni bt-ni lu- istn).40 Kalluveettil lists this case under the rubric "we are all one." Insofar as this case does not identify resources as shared, but "our house" as one, this passage falls more generally in the category of identification of parties as one. It is instructive to see that despite what might sound like an expression of parity, this is an expression by an overlord, the Hittite king, to his vassal, Talmi-Sharruma of Aleppo. This usage also appears in international correspondence that presupposes parity-treaty relations. In El-Amarna tablet (EA) 19, the king of Mitanni, Tushratta, writes to Nimmureya (a.k.a. Amenophis III) to request gold. In order to add persuasive force to his request, Tushratta reminds Amenophis, "This country is my brother's coun-

Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 103. Ibid. 40 Ibid., 102.

39

38

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE"

251

try, and this house is my brother's house" (line 70).41 The rhetoric in this case assumes a large shared household of these two "brothers," itself a common term in parity-treaty relations. 3. RS 20.162, lines 17-19 (Ugaritica F [Mission de Ras Shamra XVI; Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1939] 115):
"Amurru and Ugarit are one" (mat Ma-mur-ri matMu-ga-ri-te istnen-ma sunn).

In this letter to the king of Ugarit, his servant Parsu discusses communications with Amurru about a shared enemy. The identification of two lands as one pertains to their overall relationship, which would include an expectation of cooperation, such as the use of their resources against a hostile force. In similar terms, this one involving a discussion of exchange of valuables, Tushratta reminds Amenophis (EA 24:68-69): "we, between us, are one, the Hurrian land and the land of Egypt."42 4. RS 17.382 + 380, lines 3-4 (PRUIV, p. 80): "For a long time, the king of Ugarit and the king of Siyannu were one" {ul-tu la-beer-ti sr mat al-ga-ri-it sr matals-ia-an-ni istn en-nu-tu^ su-nu). This text, an edict of Mursilis governing his relations with king of Niqmepa of Ugarit, opens with these lines. In wording quite similar to the formulation in the preceding example, this text uses the terminology of oneness to open a description of the relationship between Ugarit and Siyannu.43 5. 1 Maccabees 12:19-23: This is a copy of the letter that was sent to Onias: "Arius, king of the Spartans, sends greetings to Onias the high priest. A document has been found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descended from Abraham. Now that we have learned this, kindly write to us about your welfare. We, on our part, are informing you that your cattle and your possessions are ours,
W. L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992) 45. Note also EA 16:32-34 (Moran, Amarna Letters, 39): "If your purpose is graciously one of friendship, send me much gold. And this is your house. Write me so what you need may be fetched." 42 Moran, Amarna Letters, 65. 43 The same phrasing appears also in a similar edict of Mursilis II known from Ugarit: RS 17.335 + 379 + 381 + 235, lines 3-4 (PRUIV, p. 71). See also Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazki: Autographien (Deutsche Orientgesellschaft; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916; repr., Osnabrck Zeller, 1970) 1 6, rev. 9 (cited in CAD I/J: 276a, #6'c): "we, the sons of the great king Shuppiluliuma, all of us and our families are one" ( mre RN sarri rab gabbini u btini lu 1-en). CAD I/J. 276a translates the last phrase "of one mind," but in view of the other cases, this level of specificity is not required.
41

252

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007

and ours are yours ( , ). We have, therefore, given orders that you should be told of this." (NAB)

With this example, we leave the world of second-millennium Syria for the Hel lenistic period. If the document is essentially authentic, as Jonathan A. Goldstein 44 maintains, it would date to the early third century B.C.E. during the time of Onias I (high priest from ca. 323-300 or 290 B.C.E.) and Arius I (Spartan king from ca. 309-265 B.C.E.). 4 5 Here the treaty language of brotherhood entails the parties' resources, which Goldstein compares with the language of shared resources in 1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7 discussed above. All in all, these examples indicate the considerable extent of the treaty/ covenant idiom of shared identity and resources.46 III. Covenant and Family The texts presented in the preceding section largely derive from the realm of international relations. It is evident that in terms of context, these stand at a con siderable distance from the situation of Ruth. What fundamentally underlies these differences is a matter of international relations versus relations on the family level. What is the conceptual relationship between these two spheres? In his characteri zation cited above, Campbell sees covenant as a lofty concept brought into contact with village life. Based on some recent studies, this view of matters may be inverted: covenant is an extension of family relations across family lines. Campbell's view was understandable in view of the pace and direction of scholarship on ancient Near Eastern treaties. Beginning in the late 1950s, studies identified treaty and covenant in international contexts across a wide spectrum of political and economic documents dating to the second and first millennia. Perhaps

44 Jonathan A. Goldstein, I Maccabees: A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 447-60, esp. 450-52. See also W. J. Heard, Jr., "Sparta/\4#A 6. 176-77. See further Stephanie von Dobbeler. Die Bcher 1/2 Makkaber (Neuer Stuttgarter KommentarAltes Testament 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1997) 121-22. 43 For a critical discussion of the figures involved and their dates, see further Neil J. McEleney, "1-2 Maccabees," NJBC, 1.437. 46 Goldstein, / Maccabees, 451. In his portrait of Galba, the Roman historian Suetonius (Twelve Caesars 7.20) provides in his account of the emperor's death (which came seven months after his accession in 68-69) another example of the language of "oneness" of identity. Himself a former general, Galba was met by soldiers on their mission to assassinate him. As he realized their intent, he "is said to have shouted out: 'What is all this, comrades? I am yours, you are mine! (Ego vester sum et vos me/).'" See J. C. Rolfe, Suetonius, with an English Translation (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann. 1914) 2. 222. The translation is taken from Gams Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars (trans. Robert Graves: rev. with introduction by Michael Grant; London: Penguin, 2003) 259.

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE"

253

best known through the work of Dennis J. McCarthy,47 this international treaty language was readily identified in a repertoire of expressions grouped in biblical studies under the rubric of covenant.48 The line of research continues to command wide attention.49 A great deal of this treaty or covenant vocabulary clearly was family vocabulary, by which the parties to the treaty expressed their relations in familial terms"father" and "son" in vassal treaties, "brother" in parity treaties. In these instances, treaties established relations between two monarchs who were unrelated in terms of family lines. The larger world of ruling monarchs could be understood as a large family or a series of families, in which each king knew his place, whether as overlord, equal, or vassal. Family was, to use Mary Douglas's expression, a "natural symbol" for expressing these sets of relations.30 This conceptual usage was not restricted to narrow family terms but extended to other expressions at home in the family, such as the language of love and familiarity (or literally, "knowledge"). In this scholarly landscape, the familial setting of this language was obvious. Scholars of covenants and treaties cited instances of individuals making covenants to establish ties across family lines. As illustrations, we may take three well-known examples. David makes a covenant with Abner (2 Sam 3:12, 13; cf. 3:21). Rahab makes an alliance with Joshua's scouts via an oath by which they promise to do hesed to her in return for her help (Josh 2:12-14).51 This example is further pertinent to the case of Ruth and Naomi, as it also involves an oath as the mechanism
4 ~ Dennis J. McCarthy, S.J., Treaty and Covenant A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament (New edition completely rewritten; AnBib 21 A; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978). See also his Institution and Narrative Collected Essays (AnBib 108; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1985). 48 See the list in McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 328-34; Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 219-35. 49 In addition to Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant (n. 20 above), recent studies include Michael L. Barr, The God-List in the Treaty between Hannibal and Philip V of Macedonia. A Study in Light of the Ancient Near Eastern Treaty' Tradition (JHNES; Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983); Frank Moore Cross, From Epic to Canon History and Literature in Ancient Israel (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 3-21; Gary N. Knoppers, "Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant," JAOS 116 (1996) 670-97; Jacqueline E. Lapsley, "Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 65 (2003) 350-69; Robert A. Oden, "The Place of Covenant in the Religion of Ancient Israel," in Ancient Israelite Religion Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 427-47; Theodore J. Lewis, "The Identity and Function of El'Baal Benth,'VZ 115 (1996) 401-23; Saul M. Olyan, "Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel," JBL 115 (1996) 201-18; and S. David Sperling. The Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible Writers (New York/London: New York University Press, 1998) 61-74.

Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon, 1970). Moshe Weinfeld points out that Biblical Hebrew 2 is to be understood as an "obliga tion bound by oath" ("BeritCovenant vs. Obligation," Bib 56 [1975] 120-28, esp. 123-25).
M

50

254

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007

for establishing the interpersonal covenant. The third case, the covenant between Jonathan and David (1 Sam 18:3; 20:8; 23:18), often comes to mind in discussions of covenants. It seems that some language in this case echoes old treaty forms used by kings. William L. Moran notes the expression "to love PN as oneself in both 1 Sam 18:3 and in the oath of Assyrian vassals made to Esarhaddon.52 Rather than reflecting influence from the top down, as Campbell viewed the direction of influence, the appearance of idioms in both the David-Jonathan covenant language and in international treaties may reflect the fact that such language was operative in various sorts of covenantal relationships, not only at the international level. These casesand further examples could be brought to bear indicate that covenantal procedures appear operative on various social levels. It is for this reason that covenant could be readily applied to marriage (see Mai 2:14; Ezek 16:8; Prov 2:17).53 Despite the recognition of such cases, it often escapes scholarly attention that covenantal relations could take place at all levels of society and not only in the settings most conspicuous from newly discovered texts, namely, the international relations among royal courts. Covenant is a mechanism useful for family life, to extend relations beyond the family, or even to intensify relations within family life (e.g., Gen 31:44-50).54 Accordingly, royal treaties are to be seen as monarchic expressions of basic family and clan relations, and not the other way around, as Campbell supposed. This shift in perspective was expressed in a fresh way by Frank Moore Cross. In an essay entitled "Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel," Cross formulated the basic point that covenant is fictive family relations: Often it has been asserted that the language of "brotherhood" and "fatherhood," "love," and "loyalty" is "covenant terminology." This is to turn things upside down. The language of covenant, kinship-in-law, is taken from the language of kinship, kinship-in-flesh.55 The implications of this insight had been recognized in 1982 by Kalluveettil in Declaration and Covenant. A student of McCarthy, Kalluveettil pointed to a wide variety of nonroyal examples of covenant language. Like Cross's essay, Kalluveettil's volume indicated that covenant is modeled on family and was operative
William L. Moran, "The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy." CBQ 25 (1963) 77-87, esp. n. 33. See further Ada Taggar-Cohen. "Political Loyalty in the Biblical Account of 1 Samuel xx-xxii in the Light of Hittite Texts," VT 55 (2005) 251-68, esp. 258. 33 Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 6. This usage has been thought to be relatively late. Sperling (Original Torah, 65-66) remarks: "There can be little doubt that post-exilic Hebrew broadened the semantic range bent to include the marriage relation, under the influence of the Akkadian riksu/rikistu. Like berk, the Akkadian term riksu means 'contract' but was used from earliest times for a full range of contractual agreements, from marriage to international treaties." 34 Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 8. 11-12. 5:5 Cross, From Epic to Canon, 11.
32

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE"

255

in both nonroyal and royal contexts in order to express relations between persons or parties who were otherwise unrelated to one another. 56 Kalluveettil accordingly characterizes covenant as "a fictious extension of kinship." 57 In other words, it is functional at several levels of society. Kalluveettil concludes: "It is wrong then to tie it down to the political field." 58 It is not family bonds that are simply like international treaties or covenants, but rather covenants and treaties, whether at the individual, group, or international level, that constitute interfamily relations across family lines. Family is the basic model, whether at the local level or the international level, for establishing ties across family lines.

IV. Implications for R u t h 1:16-17 This discussion of covenant and family has implications for understanding Ruth's words to Naomi and the parallels cited for them in the books of Kings. Ruth expresses at the level of the family and clan what Jehoshaphat conveys at the level of international royal relations. The words of Jehoshaphat represent the treaty/ covenant relationship on the royal level across family lines; Ruth's words represent the covenant relationship across family lines that have been sundered by the death of the male who had linked the lives of Ruth and Naomi. As noted earlier, Campbell and Laffey nicely characterize Ruth's wish in terms of covenant; however, Ruth's words may be characterized as a covenant between two parties unrelated by blood. As Kalluveettil points out in another context: "It is as if the newcomer shares in some sort the same blood." 59 With this understanding of covenant and family, we are in a better position to account for the similarities and differences between Ruth 1:16 and the parallels in 1 Kgs 22:4 and 2 Kgs 3:7. At the heart of these responses of Jehoshaphat are terms that notably resemble the words of Ruth: Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22:4b and 2 Kgs 3:7b: Like me, like you; Like my people, like your people; Like my horses, like your horses. Ruth in Ruth 1:16b: Your people shall be my people, And your god will be my god. "S? "pS? TIED 'JlD 1Q7D "OTD "pOIOD "OIOD

56 57 58 59

Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant, 7-16. Ibid., 205. Ibid., 15. Ibid., 205.

256

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69,2007

To begin, it is important to note what is perhaps the most conspicuously shared item among the terms used here to express relations. Despite significant differ ences in grammar, both Jehoshaphat and Ruth speak of "my people" and "your people" as terms linked in a nominal clause. Both speakers connect what is theirs with what is their addressee's. Marking these expressions of relationship is the use of the pronominal suffixes, in particular "your" and "my." 60 These are found not only in the forms of international relationships examined above, but also in rec ognized expressions of covenant (e.g., Exod 6:7; Jer 31:33). 61 This usage is a rhetorical device that marks the inclusion of the bonded parties together. At the heart of their speeches, Jehoshaphat and Ruth understand that the nouns repeated are what they share. In addition, there is a less direct similarity, but it is one that in light of the preceding observations seems advisable to include for considera tion. In expressing their devotion, both King Jehoshaphat and Ruth will go (*"pn) with their different addressees: the kings will go together in battle, while the women will go together to Bethlehem. This sort of agreement is attested at the clan or tribal level in Judg 4:8. To Deborah's request that Barak go with her into battle, he says: "If you will go with me, I will go; and if you will not go with me, then I will not go." She answers in the following verse: "I will indeed go with you." In the context of the passages from Kings, Jehoshaphat adds "I will go up" (*!7) in his response to the question of going together as posed in the question put to him. In these two passages the additional verb, *JTO, belongs to the larger setting of battle,62 but it also serves to show the kings going together, much as Naomi and Ruth do. Within the larger similarity between the passages from Kings and Ruth 1:1617, there are some notable differences that help to sharpen the understanding of the force of the words in both sets of texts. First, the parallel terms in Jehoshaphat's speeches are military resources, while Ruth's words have family and religious terms standing in parallelism. So, as noted in section II, D 7 in the two contexts res S onates differently: "force(s)" for Jehoshaphat, but "people" for Ruth. Second, Jehoshaphat's words carry the double -D construction, while Ruth's do not. So for the former, the military resources shared by the two kings will function as if they constitute a single force for this context. Ruth, in contrast, uses no -D particle. She means that what is shared is literally shared, not simply for one occasion but from that moment onward in the story. Third, if we may judge from the order of his words, Jehoshaphat's perspective begins with his own resources, which he is pre1 owe this observation and the reference in the following footnote to William Holladay. For discussion, see H. Ringgren, ii:,elohm," TDOT, 1. 279-80. For passages that shift the pronominal usage in order to express exclusion from this sort of relationship, see, e.g., Exod 32:7, 11; also Isa 7:13; Jer 42:2-3. 62 For *r? in contexts of battle, see BDB 748b, #2c, citing N u m i 3:21; Judg 1:1; 12:3; 1 Sam 7:7; Isa 36:12; etc.
61 60

"YOUR PEOPLE SHALL BE MY PEOPLE"

257

pared to devote to his treaty partner. In contrast, Ruth puts Naomi's people and god first; what is Naomi's will be Ruth's. In the order of his words, Jehoshaphat gives what is his to his ally, while Ruth begins with Naomi's belongings and thereby subsumes her identity under the terms of what makes up Naomi's identity. Fourth, the relations between the two sets of parties aim for different goals. The shared relations invoked in the passage from Kings are designed to achieve the defeat of the enemy, which will include the deaths of some of the combatants. In contrast, Ruth's words serve to maintain shared relations despite the threat to the family, specifically the potential threat of death posed by the famine. Fifth and finally, the resources shared by the two kings are mutually shared on the occasion of their joint military actions, whereas the people of Ruth and the people of Naomi do not become one people. Rather, Ruth joins to the people of Naomi. 63 There is a way in which the end of the narrative reverses this direction of joining, with Naomi in a sense joining the family of Ruth and Boaz, but for this point, it is nec essary to address Ruth's new identity and its unfolding in the context of the story. At the outset of this study, I cited Adele Berlin's insightful observations about Ruth 1:16-17. She rightly sees a change of identity operative in Ruth's speech. Accepting Berlin's notion of a change of identity, one may see the nature of the change in the most repeated element in Ruth's words, and that lies in her use of the pronominal suffixes. These locate the change of identity in the context of what Ruth can name as their sharing: their people, their deity, their sojourning, and their place of death. These are the steps of life that the two women take together from now on in the story. The book does not stress the idea of Ruth becoming Judean as such. In fact, the word "Judean" (or "Israelite") does not occur in Ruth. Of course, Judah. along with Moab, serves as the setting for the story (1:1, 2, 7), and that Ruth is a Moabite is expressed in the story (1:4, 22; 2:6; 4:5, 10). She recog nizes herself as a foreigner (2:10). The Judean ethnic identity of Naomi's family, however, plays no role in the drama that unfolds, save for the very end of the nar rative. At that point, the book relates Ruth to the "house of Israel" and the line of descent associated with the line of Judah (4:11-12). Prior to the ending, the empha sis falls on Ruth's joining Naomi and her clan, the social setting signaled at the out set of the story (1:1-2). The point of reference focus of the D7 is the family or clan 5 (2:1, 11). Similarly, the is Yhwh as the protective, personal god of Israel (2:12), not so much Yhwh as the national god. Religion is not the main, overarch ing concern of the text, but one dimension within a larger fabric of life. The sojourning of the women together involves their travels back to the family home in Judah, and the place of burial is the land of Naomi's ancestors. Yet at the end, the national royal line emerges as the book's ultimate trajectory (4:17, 18-22).64

I wish to thank John Van Seters for pointing out this contrast to me. See Knoppers. "Intermarriage." 22.

258

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 69, 2007

Here Ruth's identity marked in 1:16-17 as a familial bond is linked to the general or national level of Israel. To belong to the household of Naomi is to connect to the house of Israel. Yet between these two points in the story, family terms dominate. Naomi and Ruth continue to be characterized, mostly in the narrative, as in-laws (- in 1:14; 2:11, 18, 19, 23; 3:1, 6, 16, 17; 2:20, 22, 23; 3:1, 6, 17; -TOD in 1:6,7, 8,22; 2:20,22; 4:15). This stands in contrast to the representation of Naomi herself, who addresses Ruth only as "my daughter." At the time of the death of Ruth's husband, Naomi calls Ruth and Orpah "my daughters" (1:11, 12, 13), and after Naomi and Ruth travel together to Bethlehem, Naomi continues to call Ruth "her daughter" (3:18). As far as the text reveals, Naomi regards Ruth as family, specifically as her daughter. The story says little more about the relationship, but perhaps more can be inferred from the unfolding of this tale. The relationship between Naomi and Ruth began when they became related through a male. After the death of the male who bound the two women together socially, Naomi accepts the place of Ruth in her life, and over the course of the narrative she guides her into the family structure and communal life. By the end of the story, these two women perhaps achieve what may be regarded as the ideal relationship between in-laws. Through most of the narrative, the mother-in-law gives a new family context to the daughter-in-law, and at the end the daughter-in-law literally gives new family to the mother-in-law. So although Ruth technically remains Naomi's daughter-in-law (4:15), at the close of the story Naomi joins Ruth in a new relationship. With the birth of Ruth's son, Naomi is called JTIftX (4:16), and the people say that a son is born to Naomi (4:17). Ruth 4:16-17 thus reverses the situation between the two women: Naomi now joins Ruth's family in a manner that completes Ruth's words in 1:16-17. In 4:16-17, Ruth helps to give family to Naomi, just as Naomi accepts Ruth's terms of family in 1:16-17. Ruth helps to provide the family that Naomi lost and in particular the grandson that Naomi never had, and within this web of new relations, Ruth and Naomi found a family and home together. Now it is Ruth's D? that is indeed Naomi's UV. Implicitly in Ruth's wordsand all the more movingly for its unstated qualitythese formerly female in-laws enjoy a family relationship that clearly blurs the social categories of family blood lines versus in-laws; theirs is nothing less than the love of a mother and her daughter. For, from the beginning to the end of the story, Naomi calls Ruth "my daughter."

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.