Article

Currents in Biblical Research

2020, Vol. 19(1) 8–35
Ruth in Recent Research © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X20930655
https://doi.org/
journals.sagepub.com/home/cbi

Jennifer M. Matheny
Nazarene Theological Seminary, USA

Abstract
From the early treatments focused on historical-critical methods to the interdisciplinary
approaches of the social sciences today, Ruth research continues to speak to the current
developments within interpretive conversations. This article briefly surveys major commentaries
on Ruth, and then discusses the shifts in research from 2001 to today, highlighting future
trajectories and trends.

Keywords
Book of Ruth, genre, ambiguity, desire, canon, Megilloth, reception history, feminist
interpretation, theology, migration, gender studies, widows, ethnicity, Moabite, identity,
violence

Introduction
‘The more time I have spent with the book, the more convinced I have become
that it is exceedingly complex and ambiguous’ (Linafelt 1999: xiii). For those
who have spent time in this four-chapter idyllic story, Linafelt’s reflection in his
1999 commentary rings true today. Ruth is a provocative book in the Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament—deceivingly simple yet incredibly sophisticated. One of
only two books in the entire biblical corpus named after a woman (the other
being Esther), Ruth encompasses the most feminine dialogue in a complete story
along with significant lexical ambiguity. The unique features of the book of Ruth
(feminine qualities, female relationship, canonical placements, ambiguity) have
created a platform for the employment of Ruth in a variety of biblical research
approaches and methods.
The aim of this survey is to map the field of Ruth research through signifi-
cant commentaries and monographs, and then to chart the growing trends from
2001–2019 (see previously Erickson and Davis 2016). This survey will also

Corresponding author:
Jennifer M. Matheny, Nazarene Theological Seminary, 1700 E. Meyer Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64131, USA.
Email: jmatheny@nts.edu
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 9

highlight topics of interest within particular methods that have been given sig-
nificant attention in recent research on Ruth.
This article will be organized in four main movements. The first will be a
broad sweep of the major commentaries and monographs from the 1950s until
now, noting shifts in trends from the traditional historical-critical methodological
approaches to a broad range of literary and social science approaches. Second,
long-standing critical issues within the field of Ruth research will be addressed—
namely, Ruth’s location in the canon(s), genre, Ruth in the Megilloth, and Ruth
in Old Testament Theology. The third movement will identify specific foci of
noteworthy interest within recent scholarship (e.g., widows, violence, clothes
and feet, sex and role play, and borders of ethnicity and identity). Finally, future
trajectories for Ruth research will be explored within reception history (film and
literature), studies within the social sciences (gender studies, identity, psycho-
analytic analysis, clothing), and specialized contextual approaches (migrant,
indigenous, Asian and Asian American, and Latino/a/x readings).

Commentaries and Monographs

Early commentaries, though focusing on historical-critical issues and method-
ologies, engaged in paradigm-shifting questions that have taken new directions
in recent years. From early commentaries and monographs, some of the concerns
that have been woven throughout diverse treatments approach Ruth as a story
about loss, relationship, and ethnic identity. These issues pervade every com-
mentary, though newer approaches engage current interdisciplinary trends, with
critical foci concentrated on intercontextual perspectives. Standard commentar-
ies on Ruth, focused on issues of a historical and linguistic nature, with atten-
tion to particular themes and theological topics, include Myers (1955), Campbell
(1975), Hubbard (1988), Sasson (1995), Bush (1996), Nielsen (1997), and Block
(1999). Holmstedt provides a detailed analysis of Ruth with a particular linguis-
tic and grammatical analysis (2010).
Campbell (1975) models the historical-critical focus with a particular emphasis
on dating the book of Ruth (950–700 BCE) but also with considerable attention to
literary, linguistic, and grammatical elements. He challenges the earlier proposal
of late features within the text. Several commentaries link this linguistic focus
on the dating of the text to the purpose of the text: Myers (1955), Glanzmann
(1959), Sasson (1989), Gow (1992), and Wünch (1998). A key area of atten-
tion is distinguishing ‘Standard Biblical Hebrew’ and ‘Late Biblical Hebrew’
in order to situate the text in a particular time frame (Bush 1996: 30). Taking a
cue from theories that argued later linguistic features were not portrayed in the
text, Nielsen argues for the purpose of Ruth’s Moabite ancestry as a defense
within the Davidic monarchy (Nielsen 1997: 24-26). Though these issues have
dominated much of the early commentaries’ focus, turns toward social science
10 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

models, with a focus on constructions of identity, social affiliation, and endog-

amy, also appear in commentaries from the early 1990s onward (Sakenfeld 1999:
4-5; Matthews 2004).
Commentaries focusing on literary approaches to Ruth include Larkin (2000),
Nielsen (1997), Linafelt (1999), Driesbach (2012), and Alter (2015). LaCoque
focuses on the subversive elements in Ruth (2004) and Linafelt draws out ambi-
guity within the grammar and syntax, highlighting the subtle irony exemplified
in the focus on the women and concluding that the story is ‘perhaps not about
some king after all’ (1999: 81). Fentress-Williams posits Ruth as a comedy
through a Bakhtinian lens (2012). Matthews demonstrates that Ruth contains
strong intertextual motifs, as a ‘miniversion of the Exodus account of the return
and exile as envisioned in Isa 40, Jer 32, and Ezek 37’ (2004: 212). Eskenazi and
Frymer-Kensky offer a new translation and commentary examining the intertex-
tual connections of Ruth in the Hebrew Bible, significant themes and concepts
(conversion, redemption, hesed), and interpretations of Ruth from pre-modern
rabbinic to contemporary readings (2011: lvi-lxvii).
Volumes with a particular focus on teaching and preaching in congregations
include Sakenfeld (1999), Pressler (2002), and Driesbach (2012). Some adopt
a theological and canonical focus (e.g., Atkinson 1985). Several commentaries
situate Ruth with Judges because of canonical placement in the Protestant tradi-
tion (Younger 2002; Phillips 2004; Duguid 2005; Cundall and Morris 2008; Way
2016; Evans 2017; Fowl and Smit 2018). Commentaries including Joshua with
Ruth are Harris, Brown and Moore (2000), Pressler (2002), Franke (2005), Walton
(2009), Goldingay (2011), Coleson, Stone, and Dreisbach (2012), and Chisholm
(2013). Ruth and Esther are often placed together as part of the Megilloth. Some
of the commentaries combining these two books include Bush (1996), Linafelt
(1999), Larkin (2000), Duguid (2005), Queen-Sutherland (2018), and Taylor
(forthcoming).
Signifying a shift from Campbell (1975), the Yale Anchor Bible series intro-
duced a new edition, a second commentary on Ruth by Jeremy Schipper (2016).
These two commentaries on Ruth in the Anchor Bible Series exemplify the shift
in current trends in Ruth research, from an attempt to secure dating considerations
in the text in order to reveal the objectives of the story to a more open discussion
that allows for broader and more theologically complex nuances. Demonstrating
this shift, Schipper translates from the Masoretic Text and takes into account
the interpretive assessments from other traditions in order to ‘explain various
choices’ in his particular translation judgments (2016: 4). This fluidity extends
into his discussion on genre and dating, resisting a definitive stance but remain-
ing open in dialogue with linguistic data and literary connections. Schipper ‘con-
centrates on the nature of relationships in Ruth’, and this focus ‘foregrounds the
negotiations throughout the book of ability, asymmetrical authority, blessings
and their absence, divine activity, ethnicity, exogamy, gender, hesed, household
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 11

structures, human desires, impoverishment, labor, patriarchy, religious expres-

sion, responsibilities of the clan, sexuality, and status, among other topics’ (2016:
29). Schipper works closely with linguistic and literary features, taking into
account reception history, with attention to recent discourse within biblical stud-
ies on gender, sexual desire, and the ideological dimensions of exogamy. Noting
this shift, commentaries in this trajectory include Hawk (2015) and McKeown
(2015). Queen-Sutherland includes indigenous readings (2018). Another signifi-
cant translation and commentary that takes into account the linguistic features of
Ruth and argues for it as a late book while also examining issues of exogamy is
Alter (2015).
Monographs and collected essays with a feminist approach include the pio-
neering analyses of Ruth by Trible (1976, 1978) and Fuchs (1999). Kates and
Reimer note the significance of reading Ruth as an outsider, as ‘other’ (1994).
Alpert (1996) challenges the hetero-normative storyline and illuminates a ‘pow-
erful love’ between Ruth and Naomi. Goss and West offer a reading of Ruth as a
queer ancestress (2000). Duncan also offers a queer reading of Ruth and Naomi’s
relationship (2000). Essays in Brenner’s Ruth and Esther (1999) use a variety
of social science methods and perspectives including archeological and ethno-
graphical perspective (Meyers 1999); indigenous re-readings through a Cherokee
and African (Botswana) lens (Donaldson 1999; Dube 1999); and a feminist com-
mentary on the Torah through the story of Ruth (Fischer 1999). Koosed (2011)
examines the character of Ruth through a feminist perspective, utilizing gleaning
as a lens of metaphor and method, particularly inspired by Agnès Vardes’s 2001
documentary, The Gleaners and I (Koosed 2011: 6). Feminist approaches that
utilize insights and concepts from Bakhtin, a Russian literary critic and philoso-
pher, include Pardes (1993) and Aschkenasy (2007).
Fewell and Gunn ‘read Ruth as a novel or short story…from a literary critical
perspective’ (1990: 13). Their goal with the characters is to ‘subvert the notion of
type’ (1990: 15) as defined by Berlin (1983: 23-42), acknowledging the unique
qualities and distinctions of ‘type’, ‘full-fledged characters’, and ‘agents’. In
order to subvert expectations of the story through genre signifiers and charac-
ter types, Fewell and Gunn explore complexities of the characters, comparing
them to people in real life. Resisting a simplified, solitary trait analysis such as
a loyal person, Fewell and Gunn explore character construction through ‘careful
and imaginative gap filling’ (1990: 16). Grossman offers a close literary read-
ing (2015) and Korpel focuses on Ruth’s literary character, along with technical
linguistic work (2001). Ziegler offers a somewhat traditional characterization
of Ruth and Boaz, coupled with close reading in dialogue with Jewish exegesis
(2015). Giles and Doan destabilize traditional readings and present the book of
Ruth as a ‘deceptively subversive story about Naomi’ by uncovering traces of an
original oral account (2016: x).
12 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Several articles focus on critical themes and motifs in Ruth such as redemp-
tion (Adelman 2012; Auld 2018) and moral agency (Fewell 2015). Deuteronomic
legalities are highlighted by Kruger (1984). Embry reveals that redemption of
property is a key issue in Ruth and illustrates it through an intertextual exam-
ple from Num. 27.1-11 with Zelophehad’s daughters (2016). Halton draws out
the provocative overtones and ambiguity in Ruth 3, making a case that Naomi
uses Ruth for sexual entrapment (2012). Agriculture is another key motif, as
illustrated by Britt (2004), Koosed (2016), and Snow (2017). Ostriker draws out
themes of fertility in Ruth, highlighting the irony that while the story is ‘gyno-
centyric’, the bookends are ‘androcentric’ (2002: 343).

Long-standing Critical Issues in Ruth Research

Genre
The genre of Ruth is examined in almost every commentary and monograph.
Genre analysis regarding Ruth continues to be full of promise, contributing
engaging ideas as to the communicative purposes of the community that pro-
duced the text and the reception histories and trajectories of the communities
receiving it. Genre, as discussed in these works, encompasses both form and
function of a text and can aid in determining the purpose of the text (Newsom
2007). According to Hubbard, though not stated explicitly in the text of Ruth,
scholars have identified five possible functions of Ruth (Hubbard 1988: 35, n.
18; Matheny 2018: 173):

1. Ruth as a polemic against Ezra and Nehemiah’s foreign wives’ policy

2. Ruth as pro-Davidic propaganda.
3. Ruth as having didactic value for ethical decisions, along with the char-
acters modeling true wisdom.
4. Ruth as a story for entertainment value alone.
5. Ruth as the promotion of propaganda in respect to social duty.

Genre designations have included Gunkel’s ‘novella’ (Gunkel 1905), an ‘ancient

nursery tale’ (Myers 1955: 42), and folklore (Gottwald 2009: 554-55). Brenner
suggests that Ruth’s genre originated from distinct oral tales of Ruth and Naomi
that were later fashioned together as a ‘folktale’ or ‘novella’ (1993: 77-81).
Sasson designates Ruth as a folktale (1989: 214-15). Nielsen suggests Ruth is a
‘patriarchal narrative’ because of the link to ‘a chain of tails that often end with a
genealogy’ (1997: 7). Block identifies it as an ‘independent historiographic short
story’ (1999: 603). Scholars that suggest the genre label ‘short story’ include
Campbell (1975: 90-92), Hubbard (1988: 47), and Schipper (2016: 16). More
recent proposals focus on the literary quality of comedy within Ruth. Trible
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 13

portrays Ruth as ‘A Human Comedy’ (1982: 161-90). Using a Bakhtinian lens,

Fentress-Williams proposes the genre of Ruth as ‘a dialogic comedy’ (2012: 18).
Queen-Sutherland recommends a reading strategy of Ruth’s genre as a māšāl
(2016: 238). In a discussion of the elastic rhetorical function of genre (see
Boer 2007), Matheny (2018) proposes that Ruth functions as a dialogic māšāl.
Schipper helpfully suggests, ‘Instead of discussing the single genre of the book
of Ruth, one could analyze its use in multiple genres’ (2016: 18; original empha-
sis). The development of innovative approaches to the conversation on genre
designations continues to be a fruitful endeavor in Ruth research.

Location in the Canon(s)

‘Ruth is a travelling text’ (Matheny 2018: 195). In the Christian and Jewish canon
lists, Ruth moves about, depending on tradition, liturgical use, and theologi-
cal/historical intertextual connections. In the LXX, Vulgate, and the Protestant
canon, Ruth is placed right after Judges and before Samuel. This placement
connects intertextually with the bookends of Ruth in 1.1, and the ending tole-
dot in 4.22 that highlights the birth of David. Lexical and thematic connections
between Judges 19–21 and Ruth could indicate later redaction, potentially by
a deuteronomistic editor, with a possible chronological significance (Nielsen
1997: 40; Linafelt 1999: xix). Parallels between Judges and Ruth could indi-
cate another possibility. Namely, the one woman judge not specifically involved
in bloodshed—Deborah—could parallel the Ruth story, a story set in a time of
peace (Schipper 2016: 12).
In the MT, Ruth is placed in the Writings. Ruth’s canonical placement shifts,
however, depending on which Hebrew manuscript is considered. In some, Ruth
is located directly after Psalms, which makes Ruth the first in the festal scroll
list, the Megilloth. This placement could indicate a liturgical significance. In
Megilloth lists printed before 1937, Ruth often appears second in the list, reflect-
ing the book’s liturgical use in the Jewish festival calendar (Hubbard 1988: 7).
Other lists place Ruth after Proverbs, noting the lexical connection of ’ēšet hayil
(‘woman of strength/valor’) (Campbell 1975).

Ruth in the Megilloth

Erickson and Davis (2016) recently surveyed current trends in research on the
Megilloth. Ruth is part of the Megilloth collection, the five festal scrolls, in the
Jewish canon. There is a Talmudic text, Berakhot 57b, which does not include
Ruth but ‘it is not clear why Ruth is left out of this grouping’ (Epstein 1948:
355-56; Erickson and Davis 2016). There has been an increase in publications
focused on the Megilloth (see Erickson and Davis 2016). Research has revolved
around these key areas: purpose and origin of the grouping of the five scrolls
14 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

(Stone 2013), intertextual studies, theology of the scrolls––i.e., absence of God,

providence, relationality (Davis 2016; Fullerton Strollo 2016; Melton 2018),
and intertextual/synchronic studies of Ruth and Esther (Eskenazi and Frymer-
Kensky 2011; Avnery 2016; Davis 2016). Recent research trends demonstrate a
revitalization in concentrated efforts to study the Megilloth as a collection and
highlight particular theological topics.

Ruth in Old Testament Theology

Erickson and Davis noted the ‘lack of attention to Ruth in synthetic treatments
of Old Testament theology’ (2016: 308). Though they were clear that their list
was not ‘scientific or comprehensive’, they listed the citations of Ruth in major
treatments of Old Testament theology:

•• Gerhard von Rad’s two-volume Old Testament Theology (1962–1965) lists

232 references to the book of Exodus and only three to the book of Ruth.
•• Rolf Rendtorff’s The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old
Testament (2005) lists 416 references to the book of Exodus and only
seven to the book of Ruth.
•• Horst Dietrich Preuss’s two-volume Old Testament Theology (1991–1992)
lists a total of 132 references to the book of Exodus and only six to the
book of Ruth.
•• Walther Eichrodt’s two-volume Theology of the Old Testament (1967) lists
244 references to the book of Exodus and only five to the book of Ruth.
•• Erhard Gerstenberger’s Theologies of the Old Testament (2002) lists 72
references to the book of Exodus and only six to the book of Ruth.
•• Finally, in the following works, Ruth does not appear at all in the index
of citations: Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New
Testaments (1993); Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament
(1997); James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (1999); Reinhard
Feldmeier and Hermann Spieckermann, God of the Living (2011).

Some recent comprehensive works continue to neglect the use of Ruth in Old
Testament theology. For example, Moberly’s Old Testament Theology: Reading
the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (2015), includes one reference. Ruth
is absent from the Scripture index in Walton’s Old Testament Theology for
Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief (2017).
Volumes with a significant use of Ruth include the following:

•• Paul R. House’s Old Testament Theology (1998) lists 13 references to

Ruth.
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 15

•• John Goldingay’s three-volume Old Testament Theology (2009) lists a

total of 65 references to Ruth.
•• Bruce K. Waltke’s An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical,
and Thematic Approach (2007) contains 139 citations of Ruth.

An interest in Ruth’s particular contributions to Old Testament theology has

advanced and may possibly increase, as illustrated with the above treatments
in House, Goldingay, and Waltke. Lau and Goswell have dedicated an entire
monograph to the theology of Ruth, focusing on major themes such as ‘famine’,
‘land’, ‘redemption’, ‘covenant’, and ‘kingship’ (2016: 3).

Emerging Areas of Emphasis in Ruth Research

Women in Ruth
The nature of how Ruth and Orpah were obtained as wives is noted by many
scholars. The foreignness of Ruth and Orpah is highlighted immediately in Ruth
1.4, when the men took them as their wives: ‘Then they lifted/carried wives for
themselves, Moabites. The name of one was Orpah and the name of the second
was Ruth and they dwelled there for ten years’. The verb nāśā’, which means
‘to lift’ or ‘to carry’, has been a source of inquiry for scholars. This is the same
verb used at the end of Judges in the scene where the Benjamite men ‘lift’ and
‘carry’ wives for themselves at the festival dance. Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky
point out that this term, ‘to lift’, ‘appears in texts dating from the postexilic
period, often describing marriages with non-Judean/Israelite women (as in Ruth
1:4)’ (2011: xxx). Viewing its use as more negative, Block contends, ‘Although
lexicons tend to treat these expressions as virtually synonymous, closer exami-
nation of the latter reveals a phrase loaded with negative connotation. This pre-
sent idiom occurs only nine times in the Old Testament’ (1999: 628). In line
with Block and taking this idea a step further, Queen-Sutherland points out that
in connection to the kidnappings in Judg. 21.23, ‘the stigma attached to being
Moabite’ along with ‘ancient Israel’s struggle over the question of intermarriage
with foreigners’ alerts the reader to this question: ‘Is there foreboding here, and
if so, for whom?’ (2018: 51-52). This initial scene introduces the importance in
the story of Ruth’s identity as other, as a Moabite, and as a woman.
The three women—Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah—are central figures in the
remainder of the story. Their husbands mysteriously die and these widowed
women take center stage. Their identity as widows is another important area
within Ruth research. Schipper remarks that ‘following these deaths, neither
Naomi nor Ruth is ever described as an ’almānâ, a term often translated as
widow but more precisely refers to a woman outside of the protection of house-
hold or clan’ (2016: 47). Rather, the terms used put them in relationship to their
16 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

‘male guardian’, terms such as ‘daughter-in-law’ (1.6-8, 22; 2.20-23; 3.3, 18;
4.15), ‘mother-in-law’ (1.14; 2.11, 18-19, 23; 3.1; 6.16-17), and ‘sister-in-law’
(1.15, two times). The type of widow these women could be termed becomes
critical to the discussion. Steinberg notes three types of widows: ’almānâ—a
widow with limited economic support, ’iššâ-’almānâ—an inherited widow with
sons, and ’ēšet-hammēt (wife of the dead)—an inherited widow without sons
(2004: 334). Eunhee Kang (2009) broadens the semantic range of meaning for
the ’almānâ beyond mere economic plight. Kang considers the ’almānâ as ‘a
widow with property and a widow with a fatherless child and property’ (2009:
86). Similar to Naomi’s situation, she is a widow with a son, but if that son
should die before her, the widow will return to a more vulnerable status. Though
these women are never described as a specific type of widow, Embry elucidates
a possibility by emphasizing the redemption of property in the book. By drawing
a parallel with the story of Zelophehad’s daughters in Num. 27.1, Embry shows
that the redemption of property is a critical concern in connection to the survival
of the widows, Ruth and Naomi (2016: 31-44). Nu (2015) illustrates the nega-
tive effects of modern-day interpretation of the levirate practice by the Kachin
tribe in Myanmar. Their belief follows the stipulation for a widow to become the
obligation of the deceased man’s brother and family. This modern interpretation
removes agency from the widow and the man obligated to obtain her. In Nu’s
article, the Ruth story is a source of comparison, and she desires a reassessment
of this custom to restore agency and rights to the widowed women of Myanmar.

Fields of Violence
Several studies explore the social location of Ruth in a field and its potential
for violence. Shepherd intertextually draws out the threat of sexual violence
by ‘taking seriously the words of the book itself, “in the days of the Judges”,
in which the book of Ruth as we have it situates itself’ (2018: 528-43). For
Shepherd, this connection is critical because it highlights Ruth’s vulnerability
and status as other. In Ruth 2.8-9, Boaz instructs Ruth to remain in his field,
having warned the young men not to touch her. Queen-Sutherland notes that
these instructions are an ‘indication that the fields could be a hostile setting for
women’ (2018: 88). Nielsen comments that this dialogue reveals that there is
‘presumable fear of sexual attack and the same verb is used in Gen. 20:6, where
God in a dream announces to Abimelech that he has protected him from “touch-
ing” Sarah’ (1997: 58, n. 90). Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky translate ‘touch’
as ‘molest’ (2011: 35). Schipper translates the term ‘assault’ (2016: 116), and
Hawk as ‘harass’ (2015: 80).
Another indicator of potential violence is the supervisor in Ruth 2, accord-
ing to Fewell and Gunn (1990: 40-44). Grossman proposes that the supervi-
sor purposefully recrafts Ruth’s words from verse 2 in order to place her in an
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 17

undesirable light (2007). For example, Grossman proposes, ‘The various dif-
ferences between the boy’s description and Ruth’s words are all related to the
supervising boy’s feeling that Ruth gathered grain excessively…and that she
must be carefully watched because she gathers too much grain’ (2007: 710). In a
similar vein, Koosed writes, ‘The supervisor is certainly not very nice’ and gives
a ‘negative and even deceptive portrayal of Ruth’ (2011: 75). Queen-Sutherland
notes this threat as well when she comments, ‘Although Boaz has set into place
all the right precautions, the threat of violence lurks in the background. Ruth
must be attentive to her surroundings, following the female reapers’ (2018: 88).
Dagley reveals how the vulnerability of the immigrant woman in modern soci-
ety, with threats and experiences of ill treatment and sexual abuse, parallels the
biblical story of Ruth (2019: 211).

Clothes and Feet: Intentional Ambiguity of Sex and Role Play

‘In chapter 3, the narrative describes what happens on the threshing floor too
vaguely to confirm what exactly Boaz and Ruth did that night’ (Schipper 2016:
25). Several articles and monographs focus on the intentional narrative ambigu-
ity of the scene on the threshing floor in Ruth 3. The range of suggestions of
what was uncovered varies greatly. Bush writes that the term used for ‘foot’ is
rare in Ruth and does not have sexual undertones (1996: 153). Schipper notes
that the term is ambiguous and ‘it is unclear which body part Naomi is refer-
ring to’ (2016: 143). But some scholars see a reference to Boaz’s genitalia being
uncovered because ‘feet’ in the Hebrew Bible can be a euphemism for genita-
lia (1 Sam. 24.4). Halton heightens the sexual nature and vulnerability of this
scene when he writes that it is ‘centered around sexual entrapment using Ruth
as bait’ (2012: 32). Frymer-Kensky adds that there are only two possibilities in
this scene, either ‘she is uncovering him, or herself’ and the ambiguity may be an
intentional ploy by the narrator ‘by not making the scene absolutely clear’ (2002:
248). Lee highlights this scene in relation to the trickster motif in the Hebrew
Bible, where women ‘force the man’s hand’ through manipulation because of
unjust societal structures (2012: 147). Queen-Sutherland playfully describes this
scene: ‘The peek-a-boo show of feet is comical at one turn and frustrating at the
next. Do these two roll in the hay or spend a chaste night close without fooling
around?’ (2018: 139-40). Focusing on possible narratival purpose, Venter and
Minnaar (2013) make the intertextual exegetical connection between Ruth 3.7
and Exod. 4.25-26, paralleling Ruth and Zipporah’s actions. They view these
two intentional acts of foreign women as leading to the survival of the families
of Israel. In an alternative Asian hermeneutic, Pa (2006) views this scene as one
with a negative and oppressive message. In an Asian culture that values submis-
sion and obedience to men and mothers-in law, taken to an extreme, this story
can devalue a woman’s agency over her own body. Pa’s reading corresponds to
18 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Gärtner-Brereton’s reading of this threshing floor scene, and Ruth’s role ‘as a
harlot—sent by Naomi’ (2008: 94).
Clothing represents material ambiguity in the threshing floor scene as to the
nature of Ruth’s request of Boaz to ‘spread out your wing over your handmaid
because you are a redeeming one’ (Ruth 3.9). Berger views this as a move of
‘compassion’ not ‘passion’ in ‘contrast to the seductive act that Naomi envi-
sioned’ (2009a: 443). Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky understand the use of the
term, kānāp (wing), to imply marriage, even ‘desexualizing’ what Naomi had
previously instructed Ruth to do (2011: 59). Matthews views Ruth’s request for
Boaz to ‘spread his cloak’ upon her as ‘to serve as her husband’s legal next of
kin’ and in view of Ezek. 16.8 as a ‘symbolic act’ that will serve to provide for
Ruth as his wife (2004: 234). Sasson (1995: 81) and Sakenfeld (1999) view the
use of this term in connection with Ezekiel as a marriage metaphor. Conversely,
the nature of this request could also have sexual overtones according to Fewell
and Gunn (1990: 96-97), and Koosed highlights the ambiguous nature of this
request: ‘By asking him to spread his wing over her Ruth may be asking him
to marry her or inviting him to have sex or both’ (2011: 91). Linafelt, focusing
on the meaning of kānāp as ‘extremity’ or ‘extension’, proposes that similar to
the euphemism for feet, kānāp could also be ‘a euphemism for male genitalia’
(1999: 55).
Clothing research is an area that is expanding in biblical studies, and topics
include how it functions as a material object, as well as psychologically, and
what it communicates and symbolizes. Wagstaff highlights the complexities and
interrelatedness of clothing, identity construction, and agency when she writes,
‘The intimate entanglement that exists between clothing and people, as well as
acknowledging that clothes can restrict or enable people’s power and movement
through their own materiality… [suggest] people construct clothing and clothes
construct people’ (2017: 71). Clothing in Ruth contributes in part to the ‘con-
struction of Ruth’s identity and the identity she seeks’ (Matheny forthcoming).

Borders of Ethnicity and Identity

Scholarship on Ruth pays increasing attention to ethnicity, identity, and speech—
who Ruth is as woman and what she speaks and does not speak about her own
identity as a Moabite. The text states several times that Ruth is a Moabite (1.4,
22; 2.2, 6, 21; 4.4, 10). Nielsen (1997) and Fentress-Williams (2012) view the
Moabite references as responding to the negative tradition of origins in Gen.
19.30-38 with an alternative portrait. Van Wolde (1997a), Korpel (2001), and
LaCocque (2005) highlight the critical assessment in the biblical corpus of
Moabite women marrying Israelite men (e.g., Num. 25.1-5; 1 Kgs 11.1-2; Ezra
9.1-2). It is worth noting that Ruth never refers to herself as a Moabite and the
‘only possible reference she makes to her ethnicity occurs in 2:10 when she tells
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 19

Boaz she is a “foreign woman”’ (Schipper 2016: 43-44). She ‘epitomizes the
Moabite in the book of Ruth as not simply a foreigner but kin who has become
foreign through ten generations since the time of Isaac and Lot’ (Schipper 2016:
43-44). Linafelt draws out the question of belonging, along with identity (1999:
60-61). The issue of identity and belonging is interwoven. Queen-Sutherland
writes,

The question is an important one and a key to understanding the role of identity in
the story. In total, the question of Ruth’s identity is posed three times: first as Boaz
asks, ‘to whom does this worker-girl belong?’ (Ruth 2:5), then to the woman he finds
beside him on the threshing floor (3:9), and now by Naomi when Ruth returns to her.
(2018: 129)

Identity pervades this story, as the woman Ruth is also called ‘my daughter’
by Naomi (Ruth 2.2) and Boaz describes her as a ‘young girl/maiden’. In her
meeting with Boaz, Ruth calls herself a foreigner and later a maidservant (2.13).
Identity shifts continually as Ruth is identified as a ‘Moabite’, ‘wife of the dead’
(Ruth 4.5), ‘daughter’ (3.11), ‘woman of valor’ (3.11), the ‘wife of Boaz’ (4.10),
and ‘better than seven sons’ (4.15).
Scholarly analysis revolves around examining Ruth’s rejection or assimila-
tion within Israel. Honig, through integration dynamics, emphasizes the loss and
trauma Ruth experiences due to separation from her people and place (1999).
Siquans underlines Ruth’s struggle for legal rights as a poor and foreign woman,
and she argues that the phrase ‘wife of the dead’ is attributed to Ruth and this
enables a possibility for Ruth to obtain ‘legal status’ through a levirate marriage,
according to ‘Deuteronomic law’ (2009: 450). The continual reminder that Ruth
is a Moabite, coupled with Naomi’s marginalization of Ruth through silence in
the last chapter, reveals that Ruth will not be finally identified as a woman, a
daughter-in-law, a widow, or as a Moabite (Matheny 2018: 239). Upon returning
to Naomi, Ruth alters how she describes the workers (2.21) and Levine asserts
that redemption is to be found ‘through separation, deception, and trickery’
(1992: 83). Carroll reads the character of Ruth as ‘among them, appreciated by
them, but still not one of them’ (2015: 187; emphasis original). Ruth’s identity
remains complex and continues to be an important topic in Ruth research.

Future Trajectories
Reception History
‘Because Ruth has continued to live outside her narrative, readings of her are
well informed by her afterlives in literature, art, film, and liturgy’ (Koosed 2011:
6). Ruth research in reception history continues to be a growing area within mon-
ographs, commentaries, and articles and shows promise for future development.
20 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Koosed (2011) and Powell (2018) show Ruth’s use in literature, such as Fannie
Flagg’s 1987 novel, Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café. Koosed
highlights the use of Ruth’s passionate speech to Naomi and ‘relationships that
cross boundaries’ (2011: 56). ‘The book of Ruth is the narrative frame’ for Israeli
director, Amos Gitaï’s 1991 French film, Golem: The Spirit of Exile (Koosed
2011: 129). Powell, employing language from Shelly Rambo, argues that the cir-
cumscribed presence of queer love in the book of Ruth, conspicuously mirrored
in Gitaï’s cinematic portrayal of the biblical story, is symptomatic of experiences
of melancholia (ethnic and sexual) among Israel’s returnees (2018). Exum illus-
trates the afterlives of Ruth in art using Philip Hermogenes Calderon’s painting,
Ruth and Naomi, to show the complicated relationship among Boaz, Naomi,
and Ruth, exemplified in the ‘dual identifications of the embracing couple as
Ruth and Naomi and Ruth and Boaz’ and how the book of Ruth is ‘transformed
through cultural appropriation’ (Exum 1996: 133, 136). Lyonhart and Matheny
(forthcoming) demonstrate the parallels with Guillermo del Toro’s film, The
Shape of Water (2017), reflecting on the use of ‘multiple Ruths, whether human
or Monster’ and demonstrating how ‘Ruth’s narrative illustrates multiple aspects
of this otherness, including ethnic identity, sexual ambiguity, violence, vulner-
ability, voiceless-ness, dangerous hospitality, and sacrifice’. Reception history
continues to be valuable in communicating the diverse and creative ways Ruth
has been appropriated across the disciplines.

Social Science Approaches

Social science approaches (e.g., gender, identity, psychoanalytic, and clothing
studies) continue to be a flourishing area within Ruth research and show prom-
ise for expansion. Specifically, as noted above, clothing research has been an
expanding area in biblical studies, as evidenced in new research groups formed
at the SBL Pacific Northwest Regional Meeting during the past five years, which
has now produced a volume (Finitsis 2019). Research varies from archaeologi-
cal materiality to social scientific inquiries to ethnographic study. Wagstaff notes
that the relationship between persons and clothing is ‘more complex than has
often been assumed in biblical scholarship’ (2017: 16). Matheny (forthcoming)
illustrates that the use of clothing in Ruth provides connections of ‘intertextual
dialogue with Tamar (Gen. 38)’, also revealing how ‘women’s bodies represent
society and desired outcomes’ and can also elicit disastrous results of ‘violence,
alienation, rejection, and abuse’.
Reading desire in Ruth is another developing area in Ruth research. Desire
encompasses sexual desire and also narrative desire. Schipper (2016) rightly
points out that ‘none of the characters in Ruth ever express sexual preferences
explicitly’ but he continues to highlight the ways in which gaps and ambigu-
ity are addressed by interpreters. Interpretations of sexual desire have been an
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 21

interest in Ruth research from early rabbinic readings and have continued to
develop (2016: 35). Though not explicit within the text, the sexual ambigu-
ity in Ruth has been noted by several scholars (Hubbard 1988; Linafelt 1999;
Koosed 2011; Fentress-Williams 2012; Hawk 2015; McKoewn 2015; Powell
2018). Several scholars have written about heterosexual attraction between Boaz
and Ruth, including Fewell and Gunn (1990) and Linafelt (1999). Those leaning
towards more romantic readings are Hubbard (1988) and Bush (1996). Queer
readings have interpreted areas of ambiguity within relations of sexual desire
to illustrate homosexual desire (West 2006) and bisexual desire (Duncan 2000).
Many of these interpretations center around the use of dābaq in Ruth 1.14 (‘to
cling’) and its intertextual use in Gen. 2.24 in reference to a man and woman
clinging in a marital context.
Narrative desire broadens questions of sexuality and brings into the con-
versation the identity of the readers. Powell helpfully articulates the complex
affiliation between narrative and desire as that which ‘encompasses the broad
affective, cultural, ideological, and psychological investments of both writers
and readers… [and] encompasses methodologies from the disciplines of narra-
tology, psychoanalytic theory, feminist theory, philosophical studies, and queer
theory’ (2018: 31). Utilizing the work of Freud (principles of pleasure and pain;
conflict between Thanatos and Eros), Lacan (jouissance; stade du miroir), and
Kristeva (sémiotique; abjection; hermeneutic for the margins), Powell explores
intersubjective relationship desires between the characters in Ruth and the inter-
preters engaging with the text (2018).

Specialized Contextual Approaches

Ruth research in specialized contextual approaches (e.g., migrant, indigenous,
Asian, Asian American, Latino/a/x readings) is one of the primary areas of the
engagement of ethics within Ruth research and more should be done in the
future. Sun remarks that Ruth is ‘one of the most frequent characters to be exam-
ined through an Asian American lens’ (2019: 243). Positive indigenous readings
of Orpah appear within a Cherokee social location (Donaldson 1999) and an
African (Botswana) lens (Dube 1999). Scholars such as Pa (2006) have exam-
ined messages of obedience and oppression. Nu re-evaluates and challenges
patriarchal models through the work of rereading the effects of these repressive
trajectories (2015).
The theme of migration and immigration within the Hebrew Bible is noted
by several scholars such as Nayap-Pot (1999), Ruiz (2011), De La Torre (2011),
Gallagher (2013), Carroll (2012, 2017), and Dagley (2019). Carroll reads Ruth
alongside the issues of ‘first-generation immigrants into the host culture’, high-
lighting themes and tensions of ‘boundaries’, ‘ethnicity’, and ‘assimilation’
(2015: 185). Dagley contextualizes Ruth alongside the experience of women
22 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

migrants, mainly Mexican women (2019: 2-3). These experiences of women

migrants entail ‘motivation for migration’, ‘social networks’, the ‘danger of
sexual abuse and violence’, and ‘negotiation of gender ideologies’ (2019: vi).

Bibliography
Adelman, R. (ed.)
2012 Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies and Gender Issues 23 (Indi-
ana: Indiana University Press).
Alpert, R.
1996 ‘Finding Our Past: A Lesbian Interpretation of the Book of Ruth’, in J.A.
Kates and G.T. Reimer (eds.), Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim
a Sacred Story (New York: Ballantine) 91-96.
Alter, R.
1992 The World of Biblical Literature (London: SPCK).
2015 Strong as Death Is Love: The Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel
(New York: W.W. Norton and Company).
Anderson, A.A.
1978 ‘The Marriage of Ruth’, JSS 23.2: 171-83.
Aschkenasy, N.
2006 ‘The Book of Ruth as Comedy: Classical and Modern Perspectives’, in P.S.
Hawkins and L.C. Stahlberg (eds.), Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of
Songs (New York: Fordham University Press) 31-44.
2007 ‘Reading Ruth through a Bakhtinian Lens: The Carnivalesque in a Biblical
Tale’, JBL 126: 437-53.
Atkinson, D.
1985 The Wings of Refuge: The Message of Ruth (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity).
Auld, A.G.
2018 ‘Ruth: A Reading of Scripture?’, in D.F. Morgan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook
of the Writings of the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press)
215-28.
Avnery, O.
2016 ‘Ruth and Esther: A Journey through Gender, Ethnicity, and Identity’, in A.
Erickson and B.J. Embry (eds.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Cur-
rent Scholarship (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 43-71.
Barr, J.
1999 The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (London:
SCM Press).
Baylis, C.P.
2004 ‘Naomi in the Book of Ruth in Light of the Mosaic Covenant’, BSac 161:
413-31.
Beattie, D.R.G.
1974 ‘The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice’, VT 24.3:
251-67.
1978 ‘Ruth III’, JSOT 5: 39-48.
1994 The Targum of Ruth (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press).
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 23

1997 Jewish Exegesis of the Book of Ruth (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1999 ‘Ruth, Book of’, in J.H. Hayes (ed.), Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation
(2 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon) 2:426-28.
Bellis, A.
2007 Helpmates, Harlots, and Heroes: Women’s Stories in the Hebrew Bible
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2nd edn).
Berger, Y.
2009a ‘Ruth and the David-Bathsheba Story: Allusions and Contrasts’, JSOT 33.4:
433-52.
2009b ‘Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25’, JBL 128.2:
253-72.
Berlin, A.
1983 Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature, 9;
Sheffield: Almond).
Bernstein, M.J.
1991 ‘Two Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative’, JSOT 50: 15-26.
Berquist, J.L.
1993 ‘Role Dedifferentiation in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 57: 23-37.
Bertman, S.
1965 ‘Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth’, JBL 84: 165-68.
Bledstein, A.J.
1993 ‘Female Companionships: If the Book Were Written by a Woman…’, in
Brenner (ed.) 1993: 116-33.
Block, D.I.
1999 Judges, Ruth (New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Hol-
man).
Blotz, J.W.
2005 ‘Bitterness and Friendship: A Feminist Exegesis of the Book of Ruth’, Cur-
rents in Theology and Mission 32: 47-54.
Boda, M., and G. Schwab
2012 Judges, Ruth (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van).
Boer, R. (ed.)
2007 Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical Studies (SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature).
Bovell, C.
2003 ‘Symmetry, Ruth and Canon’, JSOT 28.2: 175-91.
Brenner, A.
1983 ‘Naomi and Ruth’, VT 33.4: 385-97.
1993 ‘Naomi and Ruth’, in Brenner (ed.) 1993: 77-81.
1999 ‘Ruth as a Foreign Worker and the Politics of Exogamy’, in Brenner (ed.)
1999: 158-62.
2005 I Am: Biblical Women Tell Their Own Stories (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Brenner, A. (ed.)
1993 A Feminist Companion to Ruth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).
1999 Ruth and Esther (FCB, 2/3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).
24 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Brenner, A., and J.W. van Henten (eds.)

1999 Food and Drink in the Biblical World (Semeia, 86; Atlanta: Society of Bibli-
cal Literature).
Britt, B.
2004 ‘Death, Social Conflict, and the Barley Harvest in the Hebrew Bible’, Journal
of Hebrew Scriptures 5: 1-28.
2009 ‘Sacrifice and the Displacement of Mothers in the Book of Ruth and Coe-
tzee’s Disgrace’, in C.A. Kirk-Duggan and T. Pippin (eds.), Mother Goose,
Mother Jones, and Mommie Dearest: Biblical Mothers and Their Children
(SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 37-49.
Bronner, L.L.
1993 ‘A Thematic Approach to Ruth in Rabbinic Literature’, in Brenner (ed.)
1993: 146-69.
Bronstein, H. (ed.)
1982 A Passover Haggadah: The New Union Haggadah Prepared by the Central
Conference of American Rabbis (New York: Viking, rev. edn).
Brueggemann, W.
1997 Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis:
Fortress).
Bush, F.W.
1996 Ruth, Esther (WBC, 9; Dallas: Word).
Campbell, E.F., Jr.
1975 Ruth (AB, 7; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
1990 ‘Naomi, Boaz, and Ruth: Hesed and Change’, Austin Seminary Bulletin 105:
64-74.
Carroll R., M.D.
2012 ‘Reading the Bible through Other Lenses: New Vistas from a Hispanic Dias-
pora Perspective’, in C.S. Keener and M.D. Carroll R. (eds.), Global Voices:
Reading the Bible in the Majority World (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson) 5-26.
2015 ‘Once a Stranger, Always a Stranger? Immigration, Assimilation, and the
Book of Ruth’, International Bulletin of Missionary Research 39: 185-88.
2017 ‘Latino/Latina Biblical Interpretation’, in M. Gorman (ed.), Scripture and
Its Interpretation: A Global, Ecumenical Introduction to the Bible (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic) 311-23.
Childs, B.
1979 Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress).
1993 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on
the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Chisholm, R.B.
2013 A Commentary on Judges and Ruth (Grand Rapids: Kregel).
Coleson, J., L. Stone, and J. Driesbach
2012 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary; Carol Stream, IL:
Tyndale House).
Coxon, P.W.
1989 ‘Was Naomi a Scold?’, JSOT 45: 25-37.
Cundall, A., and L. Morris
2008 Judges and Ruth (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary; Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Academic).
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 25

Dagley, K.D.
2019 ‘Women’s Experience of Migration and the Book of Ruth’ (Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Fuller Theological Seminary).
Davies, E.W.
1983 ‘Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the Gōʾēl’, VT 33.2: 231-34.
Davis, A.
2016 ‘Ruth and Esther as the Thematic Frame of the Megilloth’, in A. Erickson and
B. Embry (eds.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 7-19.
Davis, E.F.
2003 Who Are You, My Daughter? Reading Ruth through Image and Text (Louis-
ville: Westminster John Knox).
De La Torre, M.A.
2011 Genesis (Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible; Louisville: West-
minster John Knox).
De Waard, J., and A.N. Eugene
1973 A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth (Helps for Translators, 15;
London: United Bible Societies).
Donaldson, L.E.
1999 ‘The Sign of Orpah: Reading Ruth through Native Eyes’, in A. Brenner (ed.),
Ruth and Esther (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).
Driesbach, J.
2012 Ruth (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, 3; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House).
Dube, M.W.
1999 ‘The Unpublished Letters of Orpah to Ruth’, in Brenner (ed.) 1999: 145-57.
2001 ‘Divining Ruth for International Relations’, in A.K.M. Adam (ed.), Postmod-
ern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader (St. Louis: Chalice) 67-80.
Duguid, I.M.
2005 Esther and Ruth (Reformed Expository Commentary; Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R).
Duncan, C.M.
2000 ‘The Book of Ruth: On Boundaries, Love, and Truth’, in R.E. Goss and M.
West (eds.), Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible (Cleveland:
Pilgrim) 92-102.
Eichrodt, W.
1967 Theology of the Old Testament (OTL; 2 vols.; trans. J.A. Baker; Philadelphia:
Westminster).
Embry, B. (ed.)
2016 Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship (Hebrew Bible
Monographs, 78; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix).
Epstein, I. (ed.)
1948 The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Zera’im (London: Soncino Press).
Erickson, A., and A.R. Davis
2016 ‘Recent Research on the Megilloth (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther)’, CBR 14.3: 298-318.
Eskenazi, T.C., and T. Frymer-Kensky
2011 Ruth (Jewish Publication Society Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society).
26 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Evans, M.J.
2017 Judges and Ruth (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries; Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic).
Exum, J.C.
1996 Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women
(JSOTSup, 215; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).
Feldmeier, R., and H. Spieckermann
2011 God of the Living: A Biblical Theology (Waco, TX: Baylor University).
Fentress-Williams, J.
2012 Ruth (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary; Nashville: Abingdon).
Fewell, D.N.
2015 ‘Space for Moral Agency in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 40.1: 79-96.
Fewell, D.N., and D.M. Gunn
1989a ‘Boaz, Pillar of Society: Measures of Worth in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 45:
45-59.
1989b ‘Is Coxon a Scold? On Responding to the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 45: 39-43.
1990 Compromising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book of Ruth (Louis-
ville: Westminster John Knox).
1999 ‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book
of Ruth’, in A. Bach (ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (New
York: Routledge) 233-39.
Finitsis, A. (ed.)
2019 Dress and Clothing in the Hebrew Bible: ‘For All Her Household Are Clothed
in Crimson’ (LHBOTS, 679; New York: T&T Clark).
Fisch, H.
1982 ‘Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History’, VT 32.4: 425-37.
Fischer, I.
2007 ‘The Book of Ruth as Exegetical Literature’, European Judaism 40.2: 140-49.
1999 ‘The Book of Ruth: A “Feminist” Commentary to the Torah?’, in Brenner
(ed.) 1999: 23-49.
Flagg, F.
1987 Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Café (New York: Ballantine).
Fowl, S., and L. Smit
2018 Judges and Ruth (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible; Grand Rap-
ids: Baker).
Franke, J.R.
2005 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scrip-
ture; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
Frymer-Kensky, T.
2002 Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories (New
York: Schocken).
Fuchs, E.
1999 ‘Status and Role of Female Heroines in the Biblical Narrative’, in A. Bach
(ed.), Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader (New York: Routledge) 77-84.
Fullerton Strollo, M.
2016 ‘Initiative and Agency: Towards a Theology of the Megilloth’, in A. Erickson
and B. Embry (eds.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholar-
ship (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 150-60.
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 27

Gallagher, S.D.
2013 ‘Blessing on the Move: The Outpouring of God’s Blessing through the
Migrant Abraham’, Mission Studies 30.2: 147-61.
Gärtner-Brereton, L.
2008 The Ontology of Space in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (London: Equinox).
Gerstenberger, E.
2002 Theologies of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress).
Giles, T., and W.J. Doan
2016 The Story of Naomi—The Book of Ruth: From Gender to Politics (Biblical
Performance Criticism; Eugene, OR: Cascade).
Gitaï, A. (director)
1991 Golem: The Spirit of Exile (Chicago: Facets Video).
Glanzmann, G.
1959 ‘The Origin and Date of the Book of Ruth’, CBQ 21: 201-207.
Glover, N.
2009 ‘Your People, My People: An Exploration of Ethnicity in Ruth’, JSOT 33.3:
293-313.
Goldingay, J.
2009 Old Testament Theology (3 vols.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
2011 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (The OT for Everyone Series; Louisville: Westminster
John Knox).
Gonda, C.
2007 ‘Lesbian Feminist Criticism’, in G. Plain and S. Sellers (eds.), A History of
Feminist Literary Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 169-86.
Goss, R., and M. West (eds.)
2000 Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible (Cleveland: Pilgrim).
Gottwald, N.
2009 The Hebrew Bible: A Brief Socio-Literary Introduction (Minneapolis: Augs-
burg).
Goulder, M.D.
1993 ‘Ruth: A Homily on Deuteronomy 22–25?’, in H.A. McKay and D.J.A. Clines
(eds.), Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honour of
R. Norman Whybray on His Seventieth Birthday (JSOTSup, 162; Sheffield:
JSOT Press) 307-19.
Gow, M.D.
1992 ‘Ruth’, in K.J. Vanhoozer (ed.), Theological Interpretation of the Old Testa-
ment: A Book-by-Book Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic) 102-10.
Grant, R.
1991 ‘Literary Structure in the Book of Ruth’, BSac 148: 424-41.
Gray, J.
1986 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (repr.; New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Green, B.
1980 ‘A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth’ (Ph.D.
dissertation, Graduate Theological Union).
1982 ‘The Plot of the Biblical Story of Ruth’, JSOT 23: 55-68.
1992 What Are the Targums? (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical).
28 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Grossman, J.
2007 ‘“Gleaning among the Ears”—“Gathering among the Sheaves”: Character-
izing the Image of the Supervising Boy (Ruth 2)’, JBL 126.4: 703-16.
2015 Ruth: Bridges and Boundaries (Das Alte Testament im Dialog/An Outline of
an Old Testament in Dialogue; Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang).
Gunkel, H.
1905 ‘Ruth’, Deutsche Rundschau 32: 50-69.
Hals, R.M.
1969 The Theology of the Book of Ruth (Facet Books; Philadelphia: Fortress).
Halton, C.
2012 ‘An Indecent Proposal: The Theological Core of the Book of Ruth’, SJOT 26:
30-43.
Hamilton, J.
1988 The Book of Ruth (New York: Doubleday).
Harris, J.G., C.A. Brown, and M. Moore
2000 Judges, Ruth (New International Biblical Commentary Old Testament, 5;
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
2012 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Understanding the Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Baker).
Hawk, L.D.
2015 Ruth (Apollos Old Testament Commentary; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity).
Hawkins, P.S., and L.C. Stahlberg (eds.)
2006 Scrolls of Love: Ruth and the Song of Songs (New York: Fordham University
Press).
Holmstedt, R.D.
2010 Ruth: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Baylor Handbook on the Hebrew
Bible; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press).
Honig, B.
1999 ‘Ruth, the Model Emigrée: Mourning and the Symbolic Politics of Immigra-
tion’, in Brenner (ed.) 1999: 50-74.
House, P.R.
1998 Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic).
Hubbard, R.L., Jr.
1988 The Book of Ruth (New International Commentary on the Old Testament;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
1989 ‘Theological Reflections on Naomi’s Shrewdness’, TynBul 40: 283-92.
Hyman, R.T.
1984 ‘Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth’, Union Seminary
Quarterly Review 39: 189-201.
Kang, E.
2009 ‘The Dialogic Significance of the Sojourner, the Fatherless, and the Widow
in Deuteronomy through an Analysis of Chronotope Using Bakhtin’s Read-
ing Strategy’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate Theological Union).
Kates, J.A.
1994 ‘Women at the Center: Ruth and Shavuot’, in J.A. Kates and G.T. Reimer
(eds.), Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (New
York: Ballantine) 187-210.
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 29

Keita, S., and J. Dyk

2006 ‘The Scene at the Threshing Floor: Suggestive Readings and Intercultural
Considerations on Ruth 3’, The Bible Translator 57: 17-32.
Kates, J.A., and G.T. Reimer (eds.)
1994 Reading Ruth: Contemporary Women Reclaim a Sacred Story (New York:
Ballantine).
Koosed, J.L.
2011 Gleaning Ruth: A Biblical Heroine and Her Afterlives (Studies on Person-
alities of the Old Testament; Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina
Press).
2016 ‘Sustenance and Survival in Biblical Narrative’, in J. Koosed and D.N.
Fewell (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford
University Press) 489-97.
Korpel, M.C.A.
2001 The Structure of the Book of Ruth (Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gor-
cum).
2003 ‘Theodicy in the Book of Ruth’, in A. Laato et al. (eds.), Theodicy in the
World of the Bible (Leiden: Brill) 334-50.
Kruger, P.
1984 ‘The Hem of the Garment in Marriage: The Meaning of the Symbolic Gesture
in Ruth 3:9 and Ezek. 16:8’, Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 12:
79-86.
LaCocque, A.
2004 Ruth (Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress).
2005 The Feminine Unconventional: Four Subversive Figures in Israel’s Tradition
(repr.; Overtures to Biblical Theology; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock).
2006 ‘Subverting the Biblical World: Sociology and Politics in the Book of Ruth’,
in P. Hawkins et al. (eds.), Scrolls of Love: Ruth and Song of Songs (New
York: Fordham) 20-30.
Landy, Francis
1994 ‘Ruth and the Romance of Realism, or Deconstructing History’, JAAR 62:
285-317.
Larkin, K.J.
2000 Ruth and Esther (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).
Lau, P., and G. Goswell
2016 Unceasing Kindness: A Biblical Theology of Ruth (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity).
Lee, E.P.
2012 ‘Ruth’, in C. Newsom, S. Ringe, and J. Lapsley (eds.), Women’s Bible Com-
mentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 142-49.
Leggett, D.A.
1974 The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament with Special Atten-
tion to the Book of Ruth (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack).
Levine, A.-J.
1992 ‘Ruth’, in C.A. Newsom and S.H. Ringe (eds.), The Women’s Bible Com-
mentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 78-84.
30 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Levine, É.
1973 The Aramaic Version of Ruth (Analecta biblica, 58; Rome: Biblical Institute
Press).
Linafelt, T.
1999 ‘Ruth’, in T. Linafelt and T.K. Beal (eds.), Ruth and Esther (Berit Olam; Col-
legeville, MN: Liturgical) xi-90.
Lyonhart, J., and J. Matheny
forthcoming ‘The Biblical Narrative of Ruth and the Monstrous Other’, in T. Ballas (ed.),
Cinema and Liberation Theology (New York: Routledge).
Magonet, J.
1997 ‘Rabbinic Readings of Ruth’, European Judaism 40: 150-57.
Maldonado, R.
1995 ‘Reading Malinche Reading Ruth: Toward a Hermeneutics of Betrayal’,
Semeia 72: 91-109.
Masenya, M.J.
1998 ‘“Ngwetši” (Bride): The Naomi-Ruth Story from an African–South African
Woman’s Perspective’, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 14.2: 81-90.
Matheny, J.
2018 ‘Judges 19–21 and Ruth: Canon as a Voice of Answerability’ (Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Kent).
In Progress ‘Tamar and Ruth: Dress as (Mis) Communication and Inheritance Negotia-
tion’ in A. Finitsis (ed.), Dress and Clothing in the Hebrew Bible (paper deliv-
ered at the regional meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature Research
Group on Dress and Clothing in Ellensberg, WA, 2019).
Matthews, V.H.
2004 Judges and Ruth (New Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press).
McKeown, J.
2015 Ruth (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Cambridge, MA: Eerd-
mans).
Melton, B.
2018 Where Is God in the Megilloth?: A Dialogue on the Ambiguity of Divine Pres-
ence and Absence (Old Testament Studies; Leiden: Brill).
Merrill, E.H.
1985 ‘The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes’, BSac 142: 130-42.
Meyers, C.
1988 In Search of Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford
University Press).
1992 ‘Everyday Life: Women in the Period of the Hebrew Bible’, in C.A. Newsom
and S.H. Ringe (eds.), The Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville: West-
minster John Knox) 244-51.
1999 ‘Returning Home: Ruth 1.8 and the Gendering of the Book of Ruth’, in
Brenner (ed.) 1999: 85-114.
2002 ‘Having Their Space and Eating There Too: Bread Production and Female
Power in Ancient Israelite Households’, Nashim 5: 14-44.
2003 ‘Where the Girls Are: Archaeology and Women’s Lives in Ancient Israel’, in
M.C. Moreland (ed.), In Between Text and Artifact: Integrating Archaeology
in Biblical Studies Teaching (Boston: Brill) 31-51.
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 31

Miller-McLemore, B.J.
1991 ‘Returning to the “Mother’s House”: A Feminist Look at Orpah’, Christian
Century 108.1: 428-30.
Moberly, W.
2015 Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).
Moore, M.S.
2000 ‘Ruth’, in J. Gordon Harris, C.A. Brown, and M.S. Moore (eds.), Joshua,
Judges, Ruth (New International Biblical Commentary Old Testament Series,
5; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson) 293-373.
Morris, L.
1968 ‘Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary’, in A.E. Cundall and L. Morris
(eds.), Judges and Ruth (Tyndale Old Testament Commentary; Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity) 217-318.
Myers, J.M.
1955 The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth (Leiden: Brill).
Nayap-Pot, D.
1999 ‘Life in the Midst of Death: Naomi, Ruth, and the Plight of Indigenous
Women’, in R.S. Sugirtharajah (ed.), Vernacular Hermeneutics (The Bible
and Postcolonialism, 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic) 52-65.
Neusner, J.
1993 The Mother of the Messiah in Judaism: The Book of Ruth (Valley Forge, PA:
Trinity Press International).
Newsom, C.A.
2007 ‘Spying out the Land’, in R. Boer (ed.), Bakhtin and Genre Theory in Biblical
Studies (SBL Semeia Studies; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 19-30.
Newsom, C.A., and S.H. Ringe (eds.)
1992 The Women’s Bible Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox).
Niditch, S.
1996 Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox).
Nielsen, K.
1997 Ruth (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).
Nu, R.
2015 ‘A Reinterpretation of Levirate Marriage in Ruth 4:1-12 for Kachin Soci-
ety’, in J. Havea and P.H.W. Lau (eds.), Reading Ruth in Asia (International
Voices in Biblical Studies, 7; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 57-72.
Ostriker, A.
2002 ‘The Book of Ruth and the Love of the Land’, BibInt 10: 343-58.
Pa, A.M.S.
2006 ‘Reading Ruth 3:1-5 from an Asian Woman’s Perspective’, in L. Day and C.
Pressler (eds.), Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World (Louisville: West-
minster John Knox) 47-59.
Pardes, I.
1993 The Book of Ruth: Countertraditions in the Bible—A Feminist Approach
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
32 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Phillips, G.W.
2004 Judges, Ruth (Holman Old Testament Commentary; Nashville: Broadman
and Holman).
Powell, S.D.
2018 Narrative Desire and the Book of Ruth (New York: Bloomsbury).
Pressler, C.
2002 Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Westminster Bible Commentary; Louisville: West-
minster John Knox).
Preuss, H.D.
1991–92 Old Testament Theology (OTL; 2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).
Prinsloo, W.S.
1980 ‘The Theology of the Book of Ruth’, VT 30: 330-41.
Queen-Sutherland, K.
2016 ‘Ruth, Qoheleth, and Esther: Counter Voices from the Megilloth’, Perspec-
tives in Religious Studies 43: 227-42.
2018 Ruth and Esther (Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary, 13A; Macon, GA:
Smyth and Helwys).
Rabinowitz, L. (trans.)
1983 ‘Ruth’, in E.H. Freedman and M. Simon (eds.), Midrash Rabbah (London:
Soncino) 8:1-94.
Rashkow, I.
1993 ‘Ruth: The Discourse of Power and the Power of Discourse’, in Brenner (ed.)
1993: 26-41.
Rendtorff, R.
2005 The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (trans. D.E.
Orton; Leiden: Deo).
Rossow, F.C.
1991 ‘Literary Artistry in the Book of Ruth and Its Theological Significance’, Con-
cordia Journal 17.1: 112-19.
Ruiz, J.-P.
2011 Reading from the Edges: The Bible and People on the Move (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis).
Sakenfeld, K.D.
1999 Ruth (Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster John Knox).
2002 ‘Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the Wife of Uriah: The Company Mary Keeps in
Matthew’s Gospel’, in B.R. Gaventa and C.L. Rigby (eds.), Blessed One:
Protestant Perspectives on Mary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox) 21-31.
2003 Just Wives: Stories of Power and Survival in the Old Testament and Today
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox).
Sandoval, T.J.
2018 ‘Latino/a/x Biblical Interpretation Related to the Hebrew Bible’, CBR 16:
236-62.
Sasson, J.M.
1978 ‘The Issue of Geʾullāh in Ruth’, JSOT 5: 52-64.
1989 Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-
Folkloric Interpretation (Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic).
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 33

1995 Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological Commentary and a Formalist-

Folklorist Interpretation (Biblical Seminar, 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Aca-
demic, 2nd edn).
Saxegaard, K.M.
2010 Character Complexity in the Book of Ruth (FAT, 2/47; Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck).
Schipper, J.
2016 Ruth (Yale Anchor Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press).
Segovia, F.
2014 ‘Introduction: Approaching Latino/a Biblical Criticisms: A Trajectory of
Visions and Missions’, in F. Lozada Jr. and F. Segovia (eds.), Latino/a Bib-
lical Hermeneutics: Problematics, Objectives, Strategies (Atlanta: SBL)
1-39.
Shepherd, D.J.
2018 ‘Ruth in the Days of Judges: Women, Foreigners and Violence’, BibInt 26.4-
5: 528-43.
Siquans, A.
2009 ‘Foreignness and Poverty in the Book of Ruth: A Legal Way for a Poor For-
eign Woman to Be Integrated into Israel’, JBL 128: 443-52.
Snow, T.
2017 ‘Agricultural Dimensions of the Book of Ruth’ (Ph.D. dissertation, The Cath-
olic University of America).
Steinberg, N.
2004 ‘Romancing the Widow: Economic Distinctions between the “ALMANA”,
the “ISSA-ALMANA” and the “ESSET-Hammet”’, in H. Ellens (ed.), God’s
Word for Our World (London: T&T Clark) 1:327-46.
Stone, K.
2001 ‘Queer Commentary and Biblical Interpretation: An Introduction’, in K. Stone
(ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible (Cleveland: Pilgrim) 11-34.
Stone, T.J.
2013 The Compilational History of the Megilloth (Göttingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Strollo, M.F.
2016 ‘Initiative and Agency: Towards a Theology of the Megilloth’, in B. Embry
(ed.), Issues in the Megilloth: The Shape of Current Scholarship (Hebrew
Bible Monographs, 78; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix) 150-60.
Sun, C.
2019 ‘Recent Research on Asian and Asian American Hermeneutics Related to the
Hebrew Bible’, CBR 17: 238-65.
Sutskover, T.
2010 ‘The Themes of Land and Fertility in the Book of Ruth’, JSOT 34.3: 283-94.
Taylor, M.
forthcoming Ruth/Esther (Story of God Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Thomas, N.J.
2002 ‘Weaving the Words: The Book of Ruth as Missiologically Effective Com-
munication’, Missiology: An International Review 30.2: 155-69.
Thompson, T., and D. Thompson
1968 ‘Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth’, VT 18.1: 79-99.
34 Currents in Biblical Research 19(1)

Tiessen, N.
2010 ‘A Theology of Ruth: The Dialectic of Countertestimony and Core Testi-
mony’, Direction 39.2: 255-64.
Trible, P.
1976 ‘Two Women in a Man’s World’, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal
53.3: 251-79.
1978 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT; Philadelphia: Fortress).
1982 ‘A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth’, in K.R.R. Gros Louis and J.S.
Ackerman (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives Volume II
(Nashville: Abingdon) 161-90.
1984 Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (OBT;
Philadelphia: Fortress).
2000a ‘Ruth’, in C. Meyers (ed.), Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and
Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical
Books, and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 146-47.
2000b ‘Orpah’, in C. Meyers (ed.), Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named
and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanoni-
cal Books, and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans) 133-34.
van Wolde, E.
1997a Ruth and Naomi (London: SCM Press).
1997b ‘Texts in Dialogue with Other Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar
Narratives’, BibInt 5.1: 1-28.
Venter, P., and W. Minnaar
2013 ‘Rut Wat Boas Se “Voete” Oopgemaak en by Hom Gaan le Het: Die Betek-
enis van Hierdie Simboliese Aksie in Rut 3:7 in Die Lig Van Eksodus 4:25’,
Verbum et Ecclesia 34: 108-11.
von Rad, G.
1962–65 Old Testament Theology (2 vols.; New York: Harper).
Wagstaff, B.J.
2017 ‘Redressing Clothing in the Hebrew Bible: Material-Cultural Approaches’
(Ph.D. dissertation, University of Exeter).
Waltke, B.K.
2007 An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic
Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Walton, J.
2009 Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1, 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Background Bible
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
2017 Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring
Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity).
Way, K.C.
2016 Judges and Ruth (Teach the Text Commentary Series; Grand Rapids: Baker).
Weisberg, D.E.
2004 ‘The Widow of Our Discontent: Levirate Marriage in the Bible and Ancient
Israel’, JSOT 28.4: 403-29.
West, M.
1997 ‘The Book of Ruth: An Example of Procreative Strategies for Queers’, in
E. Goss and A. Strongheart (eds.), Our Families, Our Values: Snapshots of
Queer Kinship (New York: Harrington Park) 51-60.
Matheny: Ruth in Recent Research 35

2006 ‘Ruth’, in D. Guest et al. (eds.), The Queer Bible Commentary (London:
SCM Press) 190-94.
Westbrook, R.
1991 Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup, 113; Sheffield: JSOT
Press).
Westermann, C.
1999 ‘Structure and Intention of the Book of Ruth’, Word and World 19: 285-302.
Wolde, E. van
1997a Ruth and Naomi (London: SCM).
1997b ‘Texts in Dialogue with Texts: Intertextuality in the Ruth and Tamar Narra-
tives’, BibInt 5.1: 1-28.
Wünch, H.-G.
1998 Das Buch Rut (BKAT, 10; Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hänssler).
Yee, G.A.
2003 Poor Banished Children of Eve: Woman as Evil in the Hebrew Bible (Min-
neapolis: Fortress).
2009 ‘“She Stood in Tears amid the Alien Corn”: Ruth the Perpetual Foreigner
and Model Minority’, in R.C. Bailey, T.-S.B. Liew, and F.F. Segovia (eds.),
They Were All Together in One Place?: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism
(Semeia Studies, 57; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature) 119-40.
Younger, K.L.
2002 Judges, Ruth (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Ziegler, Y.
2007 ‘“So Shall God Do…”: Variations of an Oath Formula and Its Literary Mean-
ing’, JBL 126.1: 59-81.
2008 Promises to Keep: The Oath in Biblical Narrative (Leiden: Brill).
2015 Ruth: From Alienation to Monarchy (Maggid Studies in Tanakh; Jerusalem:
Koren).