The determination of social identity in the story of Ruth.

Abstract

This study focuses on the formation of social identity in ancient Israel. In particular, the issue raised here is the manner in which displaced individuals are able to integrate of reintegrate themselves into a local community. The process, as exemplified in the story of Ruth and Naomi, demonstrates the movement from a liminal social condition to a liminal spatial placement to a defined social condition within an established social space.

**********

Twenty years ago, Larry Stager (1980) provided a methodological paradigm for the study of the social world of ancient Israel in his article, The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel. He makes it clear that ethno-archaeological analysis of the material culture as represented by domestic architecture can "provide guidelines within which the archaeologist can reconstruct aspects of everyday life" (Stager: 18). He argues the necessity of employing modern ethnographic methods to help determine kinship relationships and other aspects of social organization. In particular, he notes that "beyond the household, a villager's identity and social status are enmeshed in larger kinship networks" (Stager: 20). Since that time, additional studies (Matthews & Benjamin; Perdue; Campbell) have added to the general familiarity with social scientific theory and method. Most recently, the examination of the social aspects of the 4-room house (Bunimovitz & Faust [2002, 2003] and Clark) have sparked renewed interest in social identity, inclusion/exclusion, public and private zones, as well as utilitarian space. What each of these studies has demonstrated is the usefulness of examining the biblical narrative within the context of its material culture.

Since a great deal of attention already has been given to the social dynamics of the bet 'ab, the basic household social unit comprised of an extended family of perhaps 10-12 individuals, and how it relates to domestic architecture, this study will direct its attention to the formation of social identity in ancient Israel. In particular, the issue raised here is the manner in which displaced individuals are able to reintegrate themselves into a local community. The process, as exemplified in the story of Ruth and Naomi, demonstrates the movement from a liminal social condition to a liminal spatial placement to a defined social condition within an established social space.

The Storytelling Process

Before moving into the biblical narrative, it is necessary first to note the process employed by the ancient storyteller. This creative agent makes conscious decisions about what portion of the real or created social world his/her characters inhabit. As a result, the story as artifact may be a true reflection of society as it existed in the time of the storyteller or it may be a perceived understanding of the society by the storyteller that existed in the time in which the story is set. It may in fact be a complete fabrication generated by the mind of the storyteller. Sometimes, using social scientific theory and methods as well as archaeological data, it is possible to come to a satisfactory conclusion about the social world depicted in a particular story. Characters in a story are positioned to fulfill particular and socially recognizable roles. Additionally, if the storyteller is hoping to achieve some measure of acceptable reality, then there are also legal constraints that provide focus to character development and shape appropriate behaviors. In this way the audience can intuit much of what is going on and can even anticipate future action within the storyline. They understand power relationships, the implications of conversation, and the relevance of non-human entities of conditions to the story. However, it is when the audience is surprised, shocked, or amused within the context of what is perceived as "true to life behavior" that the storyteller demonstrates true versatility and broad understanding of the social world that serves as the background to the entire, narrative.

Story and Social Elements in the Book of Ruth

The story of Ruth begins with a death--or in this case three deaths, interestingly, the tie between disasters (famine and death), seasonal markers (the barley harvest), and social transition (Naomi and Ruth as widows) functions as a primary storytelling device to initiate action and shape character development here (Britt: 9). Also intrinsic to this story is its multi-cultural nature. Two ethnic groups, Moabite and Israelite, are involved. Presumably the family-based values and relationships inherent to both are at play here, forming the cement that provides each its singular identity amidst a larger society comprised of crisscrossing social differences (Bahloul: 27). However, while Ruth is identified repeatedly as a Moabite (1:22; 2:2, 6, 21; 4:5, 10) exposing in this label the Israelite ethnic prejudices and some understanding of that culture and its values, no trace of what a Moabite believes or considers essential is mentioned in the text. Instead, Ruth is treated as an "uprooted person," who imposes on herself an expunging of her Moabite heritage, creating a cultural tabula rosa upon which Israelite social values then can be written. This development is then combined with Ruth's social condition as a widow. As a result, she becomes doubly liminal through the combination of her social status with her decision to immigrate.

Naomi, the other widow in the story, can also be seen as an "uprooted person," doubly so in fact since she has memories of her home in Bethlehem as well as the one she helped to create in Moab. What draws her out of her adopted Moabite social context and back into her previous existence in Bethlehem is the death of her husband and sons, leaving her a widow in a foreign social context without the support of any male to protector provide for her. Thus she too is doubly liminal based on physical location and social status.

Social Implications: Naomi's Decision to Return to Bethlehem

Naomi's decision to end her family's sojourn in Moab and to return to her own social context represents an attempt both to resolve her initial crisis (widowhood) and to obtain some legal redress for her husband's nearly extinct household. Having begun her journey, she pauses and attempts to grant her daughters-in-law their freedom to return to their own social context. By setting this conversation in the "wilderness" between Moab and Israel, a clearly liminal space, a "no-man's land," the storyteller signals to the audience the moment of crux in a place without affiliation (Benjamin: 167).

The dynamics of the conversation between the women are also interesting to analyze (van Langenhove & Herre: 17). Naomi's "moral" position is clearly dominant in her relationship to the two younger women. Orpah accepts Naomi's dominance and accepts her own subservient position and returns to Moab. Ruth, however, disputes this attempted positioning on Naomi's part and usurps the dominant position for herself, forcing Naomi to acquiesce to Ruth's desire. The question then arises, is Naomi manipulating the situation to obtain the stronger of the two as her traveling companion?

Orpah's quick acceptance of Naomi's release suggests her nervousness and desire to return to safety and familiarity. Ruth's refusal to return and her statement of reaffiliation signals her strength of character and provides Naomi with not only an ally in the wilderness, doubling their chances of survival (compare Moses' challenge to the people in the face of Korah's revolt in Numbers 16:24-30) and setting up a legal possibility that did not exist without Ruth's presence in Bethlehem.

If Naomi, a post-menopausal female, returns alone to Bethlehem, she may not call on the custom of levirate obligation. She may only offer the land of her husband for sale/redemption to the nearest male kin. This is exactly the scenario sketched by Boaz when he initially speaks to the family's legal guardian, the levir, in Ruth 4:3-4. Presumably, the sale of the land will then provide sufficient funds to support Naomi for the remainder of her life, but it also allows the name/household of Elimelech to become extinct.

A very similar situation is sketched out in a recently published Hebrew inscription (Bordreuil) in which a childless widow petitions for the usufruct of a portion of her deceased husband's fields. Curiously, this inscription makes no reference to levirate rights or obligations (Bordeuil: 12), and that may indicate that this widow, like Naomi, is no longer capable of having children. However, with Ruth present, the legal issue of levirate obligation can be raised, despite her designation as "the Moabite," because she is recognized successively as a valued member of the community by Naomi (Ruth 1:18, 22), by Boaz' servant (Ruth 2:5-7), and by Boaz (Ruth 2:11-12).

Ruth's social status is further confirmed by the fact that none of the witnesses before whom Boaz speaks (Ruth 4:5) demurs when he asserts that the levir must accept the obligation due to Ruth and her husband. The levir also accepts the elders' authority when he refuses to accept these terms, knowing that by impregnating Ruth he will eventually lose for his own household control of Elimelech's property (Ruth 4:6). As Cook puts it (32), this inscription and, I would add, the story of Ruth are indicators that "land tenure gave actual social and economic structure to covenantal community." Thus, Naomi's social and economic standing within the Bethlehem community are enhanced by Ruth's presence because it entitles her to claim levirate rights. In that way, as Anderson (13) notes, biblical law helps "to define appropriate behavior" and is the way in which "various identities are developed" by the community.

Social Implications: Ruth's Attempt to Transfer her Social Identity

Although Ruth's statement of transference of association and obligation could be thought of as a ritual performance, that term must be used with some caution. Ritual suggests conformist repetition, institutionalization, orchestration, well-understood context and expectation of specific activities of words (Brown: 7-8). Furthermore, there is no other example in the Hebrew Bible of a formalized ritual of transference of allegiance outside the diplomatic and military context (see Ittai's declaration below). Certainly, this is a moment of conflict/tension in her life, a prime moment for transformative "social drama," as Victor Turner would term it (Turner: 36; Matthews: 207-09).

If this is not a ritual embedded into the story by the author, but rather an attempt to describe a moment of crux in which Ruth is portrayed as acting spontaneously, then her statement cannot and should not be seen as ritual, but rather as repositioning. She is trying to redefine herself in Naomi's eyes from a Moabite widow into the widow of an Israelite, who wishes to maintain her identity within the context of Israelite culture and community. Where her actions do touch upon the idea of performance is in the indeterminacy that is created when there is an uncertainty of reaction by her audience. She does not know whether Naomi will accept her as her companion and she is therefore doubly liminal, not wishing to go back to her Moabite context and uncertain whether she will be able to go forward toward the Israelite context.

Furthermore, Ruth's resolution to accompany Naomi mayor may not solve her initial social crisis (widowhood) since she cannot count on obtaining a husband in this new/foreign social context, and living in Bethlehem will create a social dislocation that will have to be resolved despite her relationship with Naomi.

It is interesting to compare Ruth's actions here with those of Ittai the Gittite in 2 Sam 15:19-22. David excuses Ittai from accompanying him into exile during Absalom's march on Jerusalem, saying "Go back, and stay with the king [an acknowledgment that David had lost the kingship]; for you are a foreigner (nokri) and also an exile (goleh) from your home." This sounds very much like Naomi's urging her daughter-in-laws to return to their "mother's house" and "find security ... in the house of your husband." In both cases a choice is presented by a forced exile to those who have been loyal to seek security elsewhere in a safer context. But like Ruth, Ittai, the "foreigner," in contrast to David's traitorous son Absalom, refuses this offer (Na'aman: 22). Like Ruth, he demonstrates his continuing loyalty by taking an oath, "As the Lord lives, and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king may be, whether for death of for life, there also your servant will be" (2 Sam 15:21).

The implication is that the "foreigner" (note Ruth uses this label for herself in 2:10) owes no obligation to Naomi or to David and "maintains the connection with his native country or with the country which he has left" in contrast to the stranger (ger), who "has severed the connection with his former country" (Guttmann: 1). The ger in fact is even more of a liminal person, "not completely defined" if he/she "is a stranger who has joined a new community, for the allegiance may be of different degrees, and so may the rights and duties that result from this new alliance" (Guttmann: 2). It would have been appropriate to identify Ruth as a ger after her redefining statement of allegiance to Naomi, her people and her God, but that was done privately, without witnesses and thus the people of Bethlehem could not be expected to know this.

Even though Ruth is and wishes to be in transition, she continues to identify herself, as does the story-teller, as a Moabite and a "foreigner." The question therefore arises why she does this. Does she recognize that it is less presumptuous in a new social setting--less likely to invoke overt hostility to refer to herself as a foreigner rather than as a ger? Indications are that a person is considered to be an "alien," a ger, if he of she is residing outside his or her own tribal territory or in another nation. However, he or she is a "foreigner" if there is apparently no intent to stay or take up residence. Examples of this can be found in the story of the Ephraimite living as a resident alien in Gibeah of the territory of Benjamin (Judg 19:16), and the Levite from Bethlehem in Judah, who "sojourns" in the hill country of Ephraim with Micah (Judg 17:7-8). Similar language is applied to Elimelech's "temporary" residence in Moab in Ruth 1:1.

This once again raises the issue of Ruth, "the foreigner," and how that label functions within the storyline of her social drama. Does the author portray Ruth as a "foreigner"--an outsider without rights--as a contrast to Naomi's social status? Is there some post-exilic issue being raised here beyond the endogamy requirement that has to do with a larger legal issue of what responsibility the Israelite has for the safety of foreigners, as well as their acceptance into the community through legal practice and marriage?

Certainly, there was a familiarity with foreigners in ancient Israel, based on constant contact with merchants and travelers; this is reflected in their hospitality customs (Guttman: 5-7). Thus, Ruth's identification of herself as a foreigner may function as a way to solicit hospitality or hesed, charity, from Boaz (note his response in giving her additional grain in 2:14-16). h may also be an indirect attempt to assert her rights to glean as a widow if she can obtain an acknowledgement from Boaz that she is actually a member of Elimelech's household.

Naomi of course has this social status and is entitled to glean but she, apparently, is physically unable to do so. Ruth has the physical ability but must obtain through community sanction the desired social identity. Note in 2:2, how "Ruth the Moabite" suggests to Naomi that she go and glean "behind someone in whose sight I may find favor." This is not just charity or taking advantage of the right of a widow to glean. It is part of a long-term strategy for repairing the widows' social and financial fortunes.

Also at issue is what it means for a person to be identified as an exile. Naomi and David both make the decision to leave their place of residence because a crisis has disrupted their normal existence. Ittai is referred to by David as an "exile" from his home in Gath, indicating he can easily return to that place and has no stake in the politics of Israel. Ruth and Ittai choose extended exile from their lands to serve the needs of Naomi and David, both of whom have no immediate ability to aid or reward their clients (see Guttmann: 1). Sakenfeld (1978: 108-09) emphasizes the use of the word hesed in both passages as both David and Naomi invoke God's hesed in gratitude for Ittai's and Ruth's and Orpah's hesed. Sakenfeld includes both women and states that their act of setting out with Naomi on her journey was evidence of hesed. Neither David nor Naomi can do anything more to protector reward Ittai and the daughters-in-law and so their futures are left up to God and to other patrons/husbands--a "change of primary personal relationships" (Sakenfeld 1978: 108).

Shifts in Social Identity

As social exiles, when Ruth and Naomi leave Moab, they both experience a shift in their personal identity; it becomes fluid and indeterminate. Bahloul (28, 97) suggests that the migrant/dislocated person experiences the condition of having his/her collective security erased by either voluntary spatial reorientation or forced relocation. Thus Naomi and Ruth both face the personal loss of status resulting from ceasing to be a wife and becoming a widow = liminal persons. In addition, their status as widows marks them as women without a son, a real tragedy for them personally and for their household in particular.

Furthermore, Naomi faces the uncertainty on her return to Bethlehem of how to maintain control of Elimelech's property and to keep his name alive, and this may contribute to her labeling herself as "Mara" (bitter) when the women exclaim "Is this Naomi?" (1:19-20). In her study of this text, Sakenfeld (1999: 28) emphasizes that Naomi's rheloric toward the other women is an "expression of pain and frustration about her inability to provide care for them." It also speaks to her former feelings of social dislocation (while living in Moab) and her current sense of powerlessness upon returning to Bethlehem.

At this point it may be worth injecting the idea of "discourse communities." Little (73) defines these as "groups of people who share common ideologies, and common ways of speaking about things." For Naomi to resume her place in Bethlehem, she will have to be accepted back into the "discourse community" that exists there. However, the women of Bethlehem raise the question of Naomi's identity, saying "Is this Naomi?" Naomi clouds the issue further by renaming herself "Mara." By doing this she may be communicating her unease with the "world" of the Bethlehem community. Her former identity does not match her current condition, and therefore her ability to be at ease in the tiny social world of Bethlehem is not possible at that time (Lugones: 121-22).

Based on her personal unease with herself and her social position, Naomi's renaming herself may be seen as a reflection of her inability, at that point, to fully re-enter her previous discourse community. On a literary level it could also function as a foreshadowing by the storyteller of Boaz' question in 2:5, "To whom does this young woman belong?" In both cases there is a questioning of identity and membership. Moore (212), viewing the scene from the perspective of the women of Bethlehem, suggests that Naomi the childless widow, renamed Mara, is a "foreigner" to these women, and she regains her identity and worth to the community only when Ruth is married to Boaz and produces a son. This reintegrative act provides both a next of kin, "a restorer of life" for Elimelech's household (4:14-15), and a restoration of Naomi's comfort level, now socially bonded once again to the "world" she has re-entered (Lugones: 123). Ruth faces an even greater uncertainty, despite her "pledge of transformation" and her social tie to Naomi and her household, because of her Moabite origins and her childless widowhood. Although Ruth's stated goal is assimilation with Israelite culture as it is manifested in Bethlehem, acculturation processes are not one-sided. The community in Bethlehem will have some choices in their response to Ruth's presence, although some of these responses are proscribed for them and they are restrained by the law relating to resident aliens and widows (see Lev 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut 24:19-21; 27:19).

Despite the fact that "households and communities are often defined simply in terms of the physical space they enclose ... [these] households and communities are social entities; they are not what appears in physical space" (Kovacik: 51-52). When Ruth enters the physical space occupied by the people of Bethlehem, its buildings and facilities immediately become factors in her story. However, it is the people of the community she will have to address and from whom she will elicit a new social identity. Her new persona can only emerge with the "cooperation of others in the social context" (Sabat and Harre: 93).

Initially, Ruth is not even addressed by the women when they "greet" Naomi, and her first recognition by members of that community is after Boaz asks about her and his servant identifies her as "the Moabite who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab." She is not identified as a daughter-in-law, a slave, or by a social designation, but only by country/nation of origin. The text does not tell us how the servant knew Ruth was from Moab. Of course, her speech pattern, accent, manner of dress, jewelry, hair style, tattooing, etc. may have been immediate indicators of her foreign origin, but the storyteller seems only interested here and later in 4:5, 10 in revealing to the audience as well as the characters in the story that she is a Moabite.

This label is significant to the author, the audience, and, by intent, the inhabitants of Bethlehem in this story. It places Ruth squarely outside the defined discourse community. Curiously, despite her initiative in going to the field to glean, the term ger, "stranger," normally found in the law (Lev 19:10; 23:22; Deut 24:19-21), is not used here for Ruth. Instead she identifies herself in 2:10 as a nokriyya, a "foreigner," and that is a very different social designation and one most often applied to individuals who are not to be extended the same legal guarantees (see Deut 23:20; Judg 19:12; 2 Chron 6:32), and who are shunned if possible (Judg 19:12). In that sense, Ruth is actually echoing what the servant had said about her by calling her a Moabite (Cohen). A further signal of this is found in the use of a pun here between nakar, "to recognize," and nokriyya--a foreigner "precisely someone who would not be recognized" (Linafelt: 36).

Throughout the narrative, Ruth's social identity continues to be in flux. For example, Boaz' servant identifies her as "the Moabite who came back with Naomi" (2:6), Ruth identifies herself as "a foreigner" (2:10), and Boaz, who is identified by the author as a member "of the family of Elimelech" (2:3), describes her as one who has provided and worked for her "mother-in-law" (2:11). The narrator also continues to refer to her as "Ruth the Moabite" in 2:21 and in the legal context at the gate court (4:5, 10). Yet another social identity is applied to her when Boaz and Naomi continually refer to Ruth as "my daughter" (2:8 [B]; 2:22 [N]; 3:1 [N]; 3:10, 11 [B]; 3:16, 18 [N]).

Resolution and Redefinition of Identity

When Naomi sends Ruth back to Boaz on the threshing floor, she tells Ruth to dress so that she will be recognized as a member of the household of Elimelech. This use of clothing is combined with Ruth's positioning herself in space on the threshing floor. The threshing floor is an agricultural installation associated with the life of the community as well as its legal transactions. As was the case when Naomi initiated her conversation with her daughters-in-law in the wilderness, Ruth's conversation with Boaz takes places in liminal space, in this case a locale that is shared by the community but is not part of the domestic architecture or its immediate environs.

On this neutral ground, Ruth, like Naomi in chapter 1, is alternatively powerless and powerful. She has positioned herself in a legally significant place, but at a time inappropriate for women. She will be initially submissive as she makes her plea for Boaz' legal protection, using the phrase "spread your cloak over your servant" (3:9; compare Ezek 16:8). However, her staging of her meeting with Boaz will ultimately pay dividends. In order to analyze Ruth's actions, it may be helpful to employ "positioning theory." Two advocates of this methodology, Van Langenhove & Harre (17), have convincingly argued that positioning within conversation is based not only on what is said, but the nuances of the words, the emotional and physical situation, and the reaction of the other participants in the conversation.

Every conversation allows the persons involved to play a role. As each speaks his/her words are understood within the context of his/her social position and are illustrated by recognized "social acts" or gestures. What is remarkable about Ruth's taking the initiative in her dialogue with Boaz is that a person with little social standing is able to seize the dominant role in the conversation. By confronting him on the threshing floor in the early quiet hours of the night, she forces Boaz "into a defined speaking position" that he might otherwise have "not occupied voluntarily." His eventual acquiescence to her petition and his avocation of her husband's household rights before the village elders are the direct result of her bold positioning strategy.

Final resolution of this social dilemma is found when Boaz marries Ruth and she "comes into his house" (4:11). In this final social setting (4:11-13), she is not referred to either as the "Moabite" or as the widow of Mahlon. Those designations are last voiced during the legal discussion between Boaz and the village elders in 4:5, 10. This is an indication of her final shift into full membership into the Bethlehem/Israelite community. She leaves behind previous social labels and officially joins the discourse community of Bethlehem. In the process, however, both the community and Ruth are hybridized. The social "world" of Bethlehem has gained a new member and in turn it has been transformed into a new social body (Kovacik: 62).

The catalyst for this social transformation is the dual desire of Naomi and Ruth to save the household of Elimelech from extinction and to personally survive physically and socially in the new social environment in Bethlehem. In their persistent efforts, they also transform the society and the economy of that place. The levir will not inherit Elimelech's fields by default, Boaz acquires a wife, Naomi acquires a son/heir for her dead husband/sons, Ruth completes a social inclusio by moving from former wife to new bride, and the community as a whole comes to recognize the value of allowing assimilation of foreigners--perhaps the underlying motif of the post-exilic author (Matthews: 209-12).

Works Cited

Anderson, Cheryl B. 2004. WOMEN, IDEOLOGY, AND VIOLENCE: CRITICAL THEORY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER IN THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT AND THE DEUTERONOMIC LAW. JSOTSup 394; London, UK/New York, NY: T & T Clark International.

Bahloul, Joelle. 1996. THE ARCHITECTURE OF MEMORY. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Benjamin, Don C. 2004. THE OLD TESTAMENT STORY. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.

Bordreuil, Pierre, Felice Israel, & Dennis Pardee. 1998. King's Command and Widow's Plea: Two New Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical Period. NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 61 : 2-13.

Britt, Brian. 2004-05. Social Conflict and the Barley Harvest in the Hebrew Bible. THE JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES 5: 1-28.

Brown, Gavin. 2003. Theorizing Ritual as Performance: Explorations of Ritual Indeterminancy. JOURNAL OF RITUAL STUDIES 17: 3-18.

Bunimovitz, Shlomo & Avraham Faust. 2003. The Four-Room House: Embodying Iran Age Israelite Society. NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66/1-2: 22-31. 2002. Ideology in Stone: Understanding the Four-Room House. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW 28/4: 33-41, 59-60.

Clark, Douglas R. 2003. Brides, Sweat and Tears: The Human Investment in Constructing a "Four-Room" House. NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 66/1-2:34-43.

Campbell, Ken, ed. 2003. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY IN THE ANCIENT WORLD. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Cohen, Matty. 1990. Le "ger" biblique et son statut socio-religieux. REVUE DE L'HISTOIRE DES RELIGIONS 207: 131-58.

Cook, Stephen L. 2004. THE SOCIAL. ROOTS OF BIBLICAL YAHVISM. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.

Guttmann, Michael. 1926. The Term "Foreigner" (nokri) Historically Considered. HEBREW UNION COLLEGE ANNUAL 3: 1-20.

Kovacik, Joseph J. 2002. Radical Agency, Households, and Communities: Networks of Power. Pp. 51-65 in THE DYNAMICS OF POWER, edited by Maria O'Donovan. Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Papers, 30; Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

Linafelt, Timothy. 1999. RUTH. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.

Little, Miles, Christopher F. C. Jordens, & Emma-Jane Sayers. 2003. Discourse Communities and the Discourse of Experience. HEALTH 7: 73-86.

Lugones, Maria. 1995. Playfulness, "World"-Traveling, and Losing Perception. Pp. 121-28 in FREE SPIRITS: FEMINIST PHILOSOPHERS ON CULTURE, edited by Kate Mehuron and Gary Percesepe. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Matthews, Victor H. 2004. JUDGES & RUTH. NCCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matthews, Victor H., & Don C. Benjamin. 1993. SOCIAL WORLD OF ANCIENT ISRAEL. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Moore, Michael S. 1998. Ruth the Moabite and the Blessing of Foreigners. CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY 60/2:203-17.

Na'aman, Nadav. 1998. Ittai the Gittite. BIBLISCHE NOTIZEN 94:22-25.

Perdue, Leo, ed. 1997. FAMILIES IN ANCIENT ISRAEL. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox.

Sabat, Steven R., & Rom Harre. 1999. Recovery of Social Identity. Pp. 87-101 in POSITIONING THEORY, edited by Ram Harre & Luk van Langenhove. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Sakenfeld, Katherine D. 1999. RUTH. Louisville. ICY: W/JK. 1978. THE MEANING OF HESED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE. HSM 17; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.

Stager, Lawrence. 1980. The Archaeology of the Family. BULLETIN OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH 250: 1-36.

Turner, Victor. 1974. DRAMAS, FIELDS, AND METAPHORS: SYMBOLIC ACTION IN HUMAN SOCIETY. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Van Langenhove, Luk & Rom Harre. 1999. Introducing Positioning Theory, Pp. 14-31 in POSITIONING THEORY, edited by Rom Harre & Luk van Langenhove. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Victor H. Matthews, Ph.D. (Brandeis University), is Professor of Religious Studies and Associate Dean--College of Humanities and Public Affairs. Missouri Slate University. E-mail: [e-mail]: 901 S. National, Springfield, MO 65897. Author of numerous articles and books on the social world of ancient Israel, his most recent book is OLD TESTAMENT TURNING POINTS: THE NARRATIVES THAN SHAPED A NATION (Baker Academic, 2005).