Talk:Ruth: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
My digi-Rebbe has more daat Torah than your cyber-rebbe... :)
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. Create {{WPBS}}.
 
(21 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}}
}}
==Untitled==
I am removing this incredible claim:
:It is generally believed this book was written to protest the ethnic cleansing policies prevalent during the restoration of [[Kingdom of Judah|Judah]] under the domination of the [[Persian Empire]]. During that time, there was a strong movement to expel all peoples who were deemed not to have a sufficiently Jewish ancestry to prevent a reemergence of the perceived pollution of foreign faiths that brought God's wrath on the nation.
Line 11 ⟶ 15:
 
::I don't know why this book was written. Maybe the theory you point out is correct. I do know that many scholars believe that this theory is incorrect. I really don't have a favorite. But to quote from my digi-Rebbe, The Encyclopedia Judaica entry on the Book of Ruth says that this theory "has no basis at all. If the story intended to imply such a tendency this would have come to expression in one way or another in the story itself, for instance, as a reason in the mouth of the kinsman for not marrying Ruth or as an opposition to this reason in the mouth of Boaz. From the literary point of view the story reflects the classical style of Hebrew literature and especially that of the period of United Monarchy, and in contradistinction to the late books like Esther, Ezra Nehemiah, and Chronicles, no post-Exilic linguistic phenomena of real significance can be demonstrated." The EJ goes on to discuss other theories of its purpose, primarilly establishing a geneology for King David. (Encyclopedia Judaica, ''Book of Ruth'', Keter Publishing)
 
Yeah, I know the article. Personally, I think it is a problematic theory simply because of the language. In terms of style, vocabulary, and grammar, the Hebrew is earlier than this period. It certainly bears no resemblance to the Hebrew sections of Ezra. On the other hand, it is possible that there were dialectical differences between the returnees and the people that stayed. Furthermore, the books loyalty to the Davidic dynasty is obvious, when there was no such loyalty at the time of the restoration. The Soncino introduction states regarding the later date theory that: "Those that advance the last mentioned theory argue that the Book was a favorite with such as did not share the zeal of Ezra and Nehemiah against mixed marriages." Still, they did not know quite as much about the philology as we do now. My bet is that it's Deuteronomic. [[User:Danny|Danny]]
 
----
:''The book opposed that attitude by trying to illustrate that foreigners can be just as faithful as any Jew to the point where they must surely have God's favour if their descendants can include such chosen ones as David.''
 
Just dropping this sentence to talk because it went along with the one RK took out. [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 01:51 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
 
The same sections (both RK's and Dan Keshet's) existed at [[Book of Ruth]], so whatever is decided here should be applied there too. Maybe they should be integrated, but I'm not educated enough to know -- just be aware that both need to have the same neutral information, so they don't become contradictory. [[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]]
 
== "Ruth Chilton, the legend" ==
 
The last item on the page --
 
*Ruth Chilton, the legend
 
-- was added anonymously at ''19:17, 18 July 2006'', with a link to a nonexistent "Ruth Chilton" page. Googling that name shows no reasonable referent. I've removed the line. [[User:Thnidu|Thnidu]] 20:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)