Talk:Book of Ruth

message: I also moved around a few lines and moved the section on Jewish and Christian views to the end of the article. This will hopefully make the article less focussed on a christian perspective. 
RGW 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orpah was NOT Ruth's sister, as I can see from having checked Chapter 1, but sister-in-law. It refers to the women as daughters-in-law of Naomi and wives of their respective husbands.Cloptonson (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: old talk

message: Isn't Ruth's sister's name spelled "Orpah" in English? (I believe most English Christian Bibles since KJV use that spelling.) Or is that a Christian mistake?  -- Mpolo 16:00, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
:Orpah was NOT Ruth's sister, as I can see from having checked Chapter 1, but sister-in-law. It refers to the women as daughters-in-law of Naomi and wives of their respective husbands.Cloptonson (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ruth's sister's name

message: Why were one or more of these sign/s:  signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category :Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the {} sign/s?

message: Per the discussion at Talk:Book of Joshua, I will remove the "Saints" project template here, as The Book of Ruth is not really a saint topic. Instead, I'll add a WP Bible template. Information about Ruth the person should be its own article. Alekjds talk 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be it's own article, but at this point it isn't. As such, the only biographical information available on this historical personage and saint is to be found here. When the article on Ruth is created, though, the banner would clearly be more appropriate there. John Carter 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Saints? 

message: The article jumps into discussions of controversy about authorship and themes before it tells what the text /story actually IS. There is only 1 inline citation making verifiability nearly impossible - as it stands, the article appears mostly Original Research.207.69.137.11 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup required 

message: Isn't it the general standard for articles on books and other texts to have a synopsis of the text?  I have been familiar with the book since young childhood, so I know what happens, but I'd be lost if I weren't familiar with it.  For example: who are Elimelech and the son born to Naomi?  If I didn't know the text, I'd have no clue that it was her late husband and her grandson whom she effectively adopted.  Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added a synopsis. It should have links in it (e.g. for levirate marriage) but I've no idea how to do that. I hope the synopsis is clear to someone who doesn't know the story - feel free to make it better!
Well, better get back to work!  KMcA (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Having done some research on levirate marriage, it isn't fair to call this unambiguously an example of levirate marriage. Many of the ceremonial aspects are completely wrong and on top of that the obligation only extended to immidiate brothers according to that law.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.251.130 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the synopsis a little to note the use of the word "redeemer" (the Themes section rightly notes that redemption is a major theme of the book), and to note also the genealogy of David with which the book ends. Please feel free to change tis if you think it's not quite right. PiCo (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems a touch misleading to claim that Boaz was "therefore obliged" to marry Ruth - the principle of levirate marriage applies to brother-in-laws of the widow; Boaz is a "close relative" - but even then he is not the closest; the closer relative is keen to redeem the land until he realises that to do so he would have to marry Ruth - he is not treated as a breaker of the levirate marriage principle (for example not spat on); instead he transacts as many other middle-eastern transactions took place - with the exchange of a sandal. Epideme (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The Analysis describes Naomi as receiving the payment for the redemption of the land; whilst the text does not explicitly say who was paid for the redemption of the land, it would be fair to assume that it was not Naomi - having been absent for over 10 years, the land was probably sold (or more accurately the harvests were sold) until the Jubilee year.  Thus someone else "owned" the harvests - it was to them that the payment would be made to "redeem" the land and bring it back within the family - which then had to include Ruth. Epideme (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline 

message: "Chilion" is the spelling used in the 18th-century edited version of the King James Version, which is pretty much the traditional standard for spelling names of Biblical figures in the English language, so that spelling should be used here, unless there's a very specific reason for using a different spelling. AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chilion vs. Kilion

message: I removed a final clause from the "Date" subsection which said that most scholars place the book before the Babylonian period. In fact most scholars put it in the Persian period (post-Exilic). PiCo (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the book of Ruth 

message: There was a line in the authorship section putting forward the possibility that Ruth was an Israelite. This is quite a contention, since the text explicitly says she's a Moabite. The authority given was an R.K. Phillips - the only person by that name I can find on the WWW is the pastor of some small church somewhere in America - in other words, not a notable source. So I'm deleting this line. PiCo (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.K. Phillips 

message: Someone (presumably named Wajdi) at the IP 151.204.66.15 changed the text in four places, changing one instance each of the names Naomi, Ruth, Obed, and Jesse to Wajdi. It has been fixed, but it was recent so it might recur. Smw543 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wajdi's Vandalism 

message: As a professional biblical scholar, I find it incredible that this article about a Jewish, Old Testament, book can be so lopsidedly Evangelical Christian, especially in its notes and suggested reading.  I've heard that Jewish scholarship knows a little bit about this book, too.  Drlithoi (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: bias

message: The section on the authorship and date of Ruth is pathetically small. It only mentions in passing that it's traditionally ascribed to the prophet Samuel, but "it is now regarded by revisionist scholars as being a novella of probable hellenistic-era dating.". Is there any evidence to support the latter? Where does the traditional view come from? Are revisionist scholars trustworthy in these matters? Point is, it needs expansion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.122.179 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not too much is known for certain, and there's a wide range of speculation.  It's not necessarily Hellenistic, but it's not very early, either.  Many have speculated that it's a response to  post-Exilic tendencies to endogamy, which could place it in the Persian period (possibly based on some earlier tradition or genealogical listing)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, there's the fact that the Book of Ruth seems to refer to David as a revered historical figure, but according to II Samuel 25, Samuel died before David became king.  I don't think that serious scholars have taken the idea of Samuel's authorship of Ruth very seriously for more than century... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship and Date 

message: The cited source is much more indecisive about the sexual nature of the plan than the article.  The source states:  "In Hebrew, "feet" is sometimes used as a euphemism for the sexual organs.  Is Ruth making a sexual advance?  This is possible, but unlike Ruth 4:12, the text is not explicit, so although we may want to know whether there was or was not a sexual encounter, the ambiguity suggests this is not an integral part of the story."  I have updated the text of the article to reflect this ambiguity.  The other two reasons this plan was considered overtly sexual was not mentioned in the source at all, although I found some blogs and whatnot that could be used as sources instead.  If I find one that seems reputable and not just a random Internet opinion I will replace the citation neededs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.179.15 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misrepresenting what the source (West, in Eerdmans) says. It says Naomi's plan for Ruth and Boaz "is overtly sexual" (that's reflected in our article); and it says that Boaz's uncovered feet "is a euphemism for genitals." What you're quoting here is quite a different work, the IVP Woemn's Bible Commentary, which is not included in our bibliography - what led you to think it was our source? In any case, the IVP commentary isn't disagreeing with West - feet are quite often just feet, but in this particular passage from Ruth, they're not, and most scholars take a very different view of the integral nature of the sexual encounter between Ruth and Naomi (it led to the birth of the ancestor of David, and was therefore supremely important). PiCo (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Overtly Sexual Plan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Book of Ruth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070219150900/http://www.hopeofisrael.net:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=32 to http://www.hopeofisrael.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=32
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not a religious person, but consider the Book of Ruth to be of fundamental importance in the history of ancient literature that champions human rights against prejudices in the prevailing culture. The Book of Esther is another text I revere, but I like Ruth more. I don't want to edit the page myself, but couldn't something be said about what a precious piece of writing this is, for all ages, and believers and non-believers (like me) alike? Surely this book has had a documented impact on more than just the Judeo-Christian world that justly claims it. In its King James translation, for example, I'm willing to bet that it's one of the most quoted passages in English, along with the contemporaneous Shakespeare. (This example only intended to draw respectful attention to the reach of the Book of Ruth). Alan Canon (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Classic of world literature? I think so, could it be said?

message: is moving the goalposts. tgeorgescu (talk)  22:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're trying to say, but there are no holograph manuscripts of any book of the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew scrolls 

message: I find it surprising that in Chapter 3 the author go at length describing what Ruth need to do to lure Boaz especially verse 3. Women have been using those tactics since and who knows how much prior. As I read this Chapter I asked myself why are these words necessary to be included? For me, if I allow my sexist view that the author to be female, then such details would be expected. 206.251.72.199 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Shaye J. D. Cohen, here (I don't remember which lesson), considers unlikely that any woman was involved in writing the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk)  11:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps the Book of Ruth was written by a woman