by Navigator 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
3rd Son
Yes, I would like to know as well.
Waiting
Idioms can really be misunderstood. I can still remember the look on my wife's face just after arriving in the United Kingdom when the hotel desk clerk asked her what time she wanted to be "knocked up" in the morning.
Nav, Waiting,
Sorry, I didn't mean to tease; I thought you might guess what it meant. The "feet" is an idiom for genitals. Naomi told Ruth to make herself look pretty and smell nice, wait for Boaz to eat and drink enough wine and get in to bed. When Ruth goes to Boaz in the night to expose something you can guess that it not his appendages on the lower portion of legs that Ruth is interested in but the member higher up.
The person who presented this lecture is a longtime radio talk-show host and is currently studying in seminary. He spoke to both Catholic priest and Rabbi friends and ask them whether Ruth and Boaz had sex on the threshing room floor. "Of course they did," was the priests reply. "My God! I hope so," was the rabbi's response.
What actually took place would not have been intercourse. And like today, in many cultures, sexual activity (oral sex etc) is not regarded the same way, or regarded as wrong, as compared to full sexual intercourse. I can't go into the whole two-hour lecture but it covered the historical social and community justice of the Biblical period, human sexual nature and modern religious taboos that don't meet with reality.
One other point I had never considered before was the Biblical term of betrothal. Of how Mary and Joseph lived together, (shared a bed) and yet were not married.
I hope this helps. It made sense to me and when I re-read the book of Ruth (it isn't a very large book) I found something different.
After Ruth got under the covers with Boaz and his "feet" I understood what Boaz meant by his words, "The LORD bless you my daughter. This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier:" (Ruth 3:10 NIV)
Thirdson
Edited by - Thirdson on 30 November 2002 10:11:18
Thirdson:
I recently attended two sessions discussing the book of Ruth, the Church and human sexuality. It is interesting as to what is meant by Ruth "uncovering Boaz's feet." There are many idioms in the Bible and only now after rejecting my Watchtower biased education am I appreciating that there is much more to the language of the bible than just words.
This is going back twenty years or so for me, so I hope I'm remembering this correctly:
I was taking an English course called "The Bible as Literature" at the community college. When we covered the book of Ruth, the professor brought to our attention the passage in the RSV where Ruth implores Boaz to "lift up your skirt over me". The WTS interpretation was that Ruth was asking Boaz to give her the benefit of levirite marriage, and the act of "lifting up your skirt over" Ruth was one of a protective nature, to retain her citizenship, provide for her financially etc. While the professor didn't disagree with me, he also remarked that Ruth - being a Moabite woman - was offering a sexual favor to Boaz as incentive for him to go ahead with the levirite marriage arrangement. The professor said, "When Ruth asked Boaz to 'Lift up your skirt over me', she was really saying 'Lift up your skirt over me'." *LOL*
Love, Scully
Soooooooo, 'lil Ruth was asking 'ol Boaz to lift his skirt over her (where ever at this point) and she uncovered his genitals....and he mightily thank God.
Sounds about right.
lol - Naomi knew what she was doing, eh?
waiting
Hi Scully,
You and the professor are both right. Ruth wanted protection, citizenship, a food and home provider and sought Boaz out to be that provider. In return she offered Boaz a sample of what he'd get if he took her in. When Boaz challenged the nearer kinsman the next day I think he had a pretty good idea of what life would be like under the covers.
Thirdson
Edited by - Thirdson on 30 November 2002 10:12:43
Before we accept unquestioningly Lamsa's translations and commentary, we should at least take note of the fact that his teachings were quite unorthodox, at least from a Christian perspective. Lamsa was involved with psychic practices and metaphysics, and his major supporters have generally been associated with metaphysical groups such as Christian Science and Unity. He also believed that he was the only person on Earth qualified to translate and interpret the Bible. He appears to have exaggerated his academic credentials, claiming to have received a Ph.D. at the age of 16 (one year after receiving his A.B.). Does any of this sound familiar, Ex-JW's?
I'm not saying that there is nothing to be learned from Lamsa's word studies, but we should consider the source before accepting uncritically what he says.
A much more detailed essay about Lamsa is found at http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0032a.html.
It's making good sense! Read again, Naomi teaches Ruth the ropes on seducing a man. Chapter 3 is full of it. And she went at midnight (v 8). She asked for him to spread her skirt over her (v9). In v10, Boaz is on 7th heaven, he throws in Jehovah in this business: v10... She was there till morning. And left early so no one could recognise her...Ah. None so blind as those who won't see... none so braindead as a JW who won't think...
3rd Son
Thanks for sharing that "idiom" with us. It makes a lot more sense now.
Hurt
I think Boaz was asked to lift up his skirt over her. Considering that men wore skirts in those days, it makes perfect sense.
Waiting
You are correct. Naomi certainly took her responsibility for Ruth seriously and definitely knew what she was doing.
Neon Madman
The fact that many of Lamsa's supporters are involved with metaphysics doesn't bother me at all. I am too. I am not aware of any support in Christian Science, but considerable support in Religious Science. I happen to belong to Unity myself. His theories are considered unorthodox solely because of the level of ignorance in the early church regarding aramaic customs and culture. I don't particularly care for the Lamsa translation, but it has been useful in clarifying certain passages and mistranslation in the early greek texts. I never met the late Dr. Lamsa, but have met Dr. Errico whose creditials are impeccable on several occassions. Common sense is still the best criteria to use in sorting out the truth from fiction.
I see one problem as to the people who were so poor in translating the gospel from Aramaic to Greek - they were the ones who had either been with Jesus throughout his ministry, or they were the associates of those who had. So I find it very odd that they should all so completely have misunderstood what their master had told them all the time.
Besides, what is customary today need not have been customary two millenias ago.
Old Hippie
Your premise that the translators would have been associated with Jesus or his associates hardly seems likely since they were probably working with written material. Aramaic was the common language of the middle east, but there were many dialects of it. Had they lived in the area of Palestine, they would have been more familiar with the customs and culture of that area. The idioms used varied even in the short distance between Galalie and Jerusalem, probably because Assyria captured the northern part of Palestine, but was not able to take Jerusalem. The translators were apparently not aware of the derrogatory nature of the nickname applied to Simon (Cephus) which means "Stonehead" and was translated Peter by the greeks. It implies someone not too swift in grasping new ideas. It would have been used only by his closest friends.
