What Bart Erhman Gets Wrong About Ruth, Sex and... Feet!
/
Recently, I saw that Dr. Erhman wrote a couple of blog posts about the Book of Ruth entitled “A Great Short Story in Scripture: The Book of Ruth” and “A Suggestive Story in the Book of Ruth” (you’ll need a subscription to view the full posts). Much of the posts center around the meaning of “feet”:
“Different cultures, using their different languages, use different euphemisms for sexual organs. In older English literature, for example, a man’s penis is sometimes referred to as his “member.” Hebrew had its own euphemism for genitals. They were called ‘feet.’”
That’s completely accurate, of course, and my contention with Dr. Erhman is not on this point but rather, whether that was the meaning that the Biblical author intended in the narrative. Here’s Dr. Erhman’s take on it:
“When Ruth comes up to Boaz while he is asleep in the dark on the threshing floor, and ‘uncovers his feet,’ she is not exposing his toes. She is making a sexual advance. And she is fully welcomed; they spend the night together and then she sneaks off before it becomes light so that no one will know.”
So is that what’s in the narrative? Ruth and Boaz played hide the salami in a field of barley? (cue Sting’s “Fields of Gold). Well, yes and no.
There are other sexual euphemisms like this in the Bible. We may even have another one in Ruth when Boaz pours his seed (barley) into Ruth’s cloak. Samson talks about “plowing with my heifer” and Sisera “lay between her feet” at the end of his encounter with Jael. Many scholars infer sex into those narratives as well, but I propose that inferring sex into those narratives, as well as the Ruth narrative, would horrify the Biblical authors and is the exact opposite conclusion they wanted you to draw. That is because I believe those narratives are propaganda and were written to try to change the narrative that existed at that time.
The encounter between Ruth and Boaz at night is a narrative glitch: The Biblical author was taking an element from the original narrative and trying to fit it into a new narrative, and it just doesn’t fit in very well. In other words, yes, Ruth and Boaz had sex in the original narrative but the Biblical author was trying to change the meaning of “uncovered his feet” by changing the context around it. The problem is, once you know that “feet” can refer to genitals, it sticks out like a boner in a Speedo, and the Biblical author was left trying to put lipstick on a promiscuous pig. Try changing the meaning of “taking her to pound town” or “stuffing the beaver” without completely rewriting the original context surrounding them. Yeah, not easy.
However, there is some evidence in the text that the Biblical author was doing his best. For instance, Boaz sits up when he realizes Ruth is next to him. The “sitting up” part is trying to imply that Ruth is laying at his literal feet and he has to sit up to see her. This seems to be the go to technique that Biblical authors use when trying to hide a sexual euphemism: change the metaphorical sense into the literal sense. But it doesn’t work very well in Ruth and the result just seems like some kind of bizarre foot fetish courting ritual, and those that know the meaning of “feet” as a euphemism can easily infer sex into the narrative.
But having sex with a man before getting married would not have been ideal in an ancient Israelite culture and Ruth’s reputation would have taken a hit. So it’s no surprise that the Biblical author tries to repair that reputation throughout the narrative.
Knowing that the narrative is propaganda impacts one’s understanding of it. Without that understanding Dr. Erhman concludes:
“But above all this is an entertaining story of an enterprising and committed woman who uses her intelligence and sexuality to bring about her deliverance from destitution and her elevation to a secure, respected, and prosperous life.”
However, Ruth doesn’t really use her intelligence, Naomi does, and the Biblical author makes it a point to tell us that Ruth was just doing what Naomi told her, in order to put distance between Ruth and her actions. The remaining factor (sexuality) makes Dr. Ehrman seem dangerously close to putting his feet in his mouth. Don’t get me wrong, if you want to use your sexuality to get ahead in life, that’s fine with me, but I don’t think that’s the message we should be taking away from Ruth, nor was it intended by the Biblical author.
Thousands of years after this propaganda was written and brilliant Biblical scholars like Dr. Erhman still can’t see it - except for the part about sneaking out to a field in the middle of the night to have sex with a drunk guy (but, no matter, that’s been turned into a virtuous act). If the Biblical author could see that his propaganda is still successful to this day, he’d be happier than a teenage boy in a barrel full of tits.
It’s time to stop taking so much of the Bible at face value. So much of it was literally written to deceive the reader. Once you realize that, you can start looking for the bits and pieces of truth strewn about in it.
I’ve reconstructed the original narrative of Ruth that the Biblical author was responding to: Ruth was a slave of Boaz, who had sex with him, and the resulting child was considered to be Naomi’s (think Rachel and Leah). In the video below I explain how I reconstructed it. I hope I’ve aroused your curiosity enough to watch it.