Part 6 (1/2)

WE'VE ESTABLISHED that Jesus's ancestors were no saints. Jesus was called ”the Lion of the tribe of Judah”-even though Judah slept with his daughter-in-law thinking she was a prost.i.tute. King David is perhaps Jesus's most famous ancestor, and yet he did the nasty with another man's wife, then put the hit on him. What, pray tell, did it take to get dismissed from the messianic line?

Now we come to a scandal involving Jesus's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother, a charmer named Ruth. To understand Ruth, we must open a topic we find personally repellent: in-laws. Every normal person knows that his or her in-laws belong in psychiatric wards, prisons, or alien study projects. But some people, a very weird 5 percent of the population perhaps, actually like their in-laws. They want to be with them over the holidays. They want to hear their lame stories, dumb jokes, and offensive political views.

Ruth was one of these oddb.a.l.l.s. Her own family must have been a complete b.u.mmer because she was willing, even eager, to leave them and live permanently with her mother-in-law. Here's how it happened.

A Happy Homecoming Like any good story, this one began with a crisis-a famine that drove a particular Israelite family from their home in Bethlehem (as in ”O Little Town of”) to Moab on the other side of the Dead Sea (the modern country of Jordan). This family, led by the mother, Naomi, stayed there for ten years. Her sons married Moabite women, one named Ruth and the other named Orpah. For you daytime TV buffs, this is the very Orpah for whom Oprah Winfrey is named, though you'll notice that Winfrey's family mixed up the lettering by accident. It's probably better. Orpah Winfrey doesn't have that $1.2 billion net worth ring to it.

Speaking of unfortunate names, Naomi's sons were named Mahlon and Chilion, which in Hebrew mean ”sickly” and ”failing.” Thanks, Mom. Soon the boys lived up to their names and died, leaving Ruth and Orpah as widows. Naomi's husband had died too. By the way, Naomi's name means ”pleasant,” and that would prove accurate eventually.

Having lost her husband and sons, Naomi decided to return to Bethlehem. Ruth and Orpah asked to join her, but Naomi convinced Orpah to go back home to Moab and become a daytime talk show host. Ruth, however, was undeterred. She pledged undying love and loyalty to Naomi.

Where you go, I will go; Where you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, and your G.o.d my G.o.d.1 These lines, which in King James English are ”Whither thou goest, I will go,” used to be sung a lot at weddings, usually by a soprano with a no-wonder-your-opera-career-never-got-off-the-ground voice. But Ruth originally directed these words to her mother-in-law. Keep that in mind the next time you hear it during the ceremony.

Why would Ruth insist on going with Naomi? All we can think is that she was hard up for options. Indeed, jobs for women were scarce in ancient Israel. Widows who had no male relative had three options: seeking charity, becoming a prost.i.tute, or working for McDonald's, and unfortunately for them, the last option is a joke. Ruth didn't have a lot of choices, and apparently Sickly hadn't left her any life insurance.

So Naomi and Ruth went back to Bethlehem, where Ruth started a ground-level career in gleaning. Gleaning is picking up what harvesters drop or leave unpicked. Gleaning was Israel's welfare-to-work program for the poor. The law of Moses actually commanded farmers to leave a little of their crops unharvested: When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien; I am the LORD your G.o.d.2 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest; you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien: I am the LORD your G.o.d.3 In other words, G.o.d didn't want farmers to behave like Wal-Mart, but rather, to leave a little money on the table for the working poor. So Ruth began gleaning in the field of Boaz, who was a relative of Naomi's dead husband. Boaz was impressed by Ruth's industry and by what he had heard of her loyalty to Naomi (who meanwhile had changed her name to Mara, which means ”bitter,” because she was mad at G.o.d). Boaz was very kind to Ruth, making sure she was not hara.s.sed by the fieldworkers and giving her water and food. He told his reapers to leave some of what they had picked for her. Boaz even asked her not to glean in another field, so Ruth gleaned in Boaz's field until the end of the barley and wheat harvests.

At the end of the harvest, Ruth had no more reason to hang around Boaz's fields, but Naomi recognized that a May-December relations.h.i.+p was developing. She went into matchmaking mode and told Ruth to bathe herself and put on scented olive oil, the ancient version of Chanel No. 5. Then Ruth was supposed to dress up and go to the thres.h.i.+ng floor. This was the place where the barley or wheat was beaten to separate the inner kernel of grain from the outer chaff. The kernels were heavier and would fall to the ground while the chaff would be blown away. Naomi told Ruth to watch for Boaz, see where he lay down after eating and drinking, then go to him, uncover his feet, and lie down there.

Ruth followed these instructions. In the middle of the night, Boaz was startled awake and looked down to find his favorite gleaner lying at his feet. He asked who she was. Ruth told him and added, ”Spread your cloak over your servant, for you are next-of-kin.” ”Spreading the cloak” was a metaphor for taking in marriage. Ruth was proposing to Boaz. He gratefully accepted and thanked her for pursuing him rather than a younger man.

But there was one fly in the ointment. By custom, if a man died childless, his brother was to marry the widow and father children in the name of the dead man. In the Book of Ruth, the custom had apparently broadened to include not just brothers but the closest male relative. But Boaz was not Ruth's closest male relative; another man was ahead in line for her hand. Thankfully for Boaz, that man couldn't marry Ruth without jeopardizing his own inheritance, so he pa.s.sed up the opportunity. With that, Boaz married Ruth, and they had a son named Obed, who was King David's grandfather.

What Really Happened at the Thres.h.i.+ng Floor?

Let's zero in on the action. Scholars have long puzzled over the exact sense of Naomi's instructions to Ruth and her execution of them at the thres.h.i.+ng floor. Naomi's instructions were: Now wash and anoint yourself, and put on your best clothes and go down to the thres.h.i.+ng floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, observe the place where he lies; then, go and uncover his feet and lie down; and he will tell you what to do.4 Ruth obeyed, and this happened: When Boaz had eaten and drunk, and he was in a contented mood, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came stealthily and uncovered his feet, and lay down.5 What was Ruth doing? Why did she uncover Boaz's feet? Some scholars have suggested she was waking him up by pulling the blankets off his feet and freezing his toes. But why go to all that trouble? Why not simply talk to Boaz during the day and say, ”Hey, you heard what happened to Sickly. I'm available now, and you're looking pretty good”? Why do something as strange as crawling in bed with his feet and waking him up? Is this some kind of romantic chick thing, or are we misunderstanding the action?

You know well by now that the term ”feet” in the Hebrew Bible can be a euphemism for the genitals. The Israelites must have known that the size of a man's feet correlates to the size of his boneless appendage. So perhaps when Ruth uncovered Boaz's ”feet,” she was really uncovering his private parts. But if so, it still doesn't fully explain what happened. In fact, it just raises more questions. Was she trying to make Boaz think they'd had s.e.x so that he would feel obligated to marry her? This seems unlikely. Yes, Boaz was probably a little tipsy from ”eating and drinking.” That's what it means when it says that he was ”in a contented mood” (literally, ”his heart was good”). Harvest was a time of celebration, after all. But he wasn't like Lot-so drunk that he couldn't remember whether or not he'd had s.e.x. (That's drunk.) Besides, he seemed very pleased that Ruth had come after him and doesn't seem to have felt coerced.

Who's Uncovered?

Enter Kirsten Nielsen, a Dutch Bible scholar who wants to save us from our confusion. In her commentary on Ruth, Nielsen proposes a new and unique solution to the quandary of this pa.s.sage.6 She begins by noting the s.e.xual overtones of this episode. It takes place at a thres.h.i.+ng floor, which is linked with celebration, as we have seen, and also with fertility rites, because nothing put ancient peoples in a squirrelly mood like a good harvest. Ruth waited until Boaz had eaten and drunk, which would have loosened him up s.e.xually (and given him a good set of beer goggles, just in case). By bathing, perfuming, and dressing, she made herself irresistible to Boaz, Nielsen says. Nielsen also notes the obvious: the verb ”to lie,” a key word in the story, is often used in the Hebrew Bible as an idiom for s.e.xual relations. Finally, as we have seen, the word ”feet” is a common euphemism for the s.e.xual organs, and the verb ”uncover” is a.s.sociated with an idiom for having s.e.x.

Had she been at the top of her game, Nielsen might also have noted one other expression with s.e.xual overtones. Naomi told Ruth not to make herself known to Boaz until after he had finished eating and drinking and then she was to know the exact place where he lay down and go to him there.7 The verb ”to know,” of course, is the Bible's favorite wink-and-nudge term for s.e.xual relations.

Nielsen also points out that the word for ”feet” in this story is not the usual one in the Hebrew Bible. The word in Ruth is rare. It occurs in only one other place in the Hebrew Bible, where it is used in tandem with ”arms” and clearly means ”legs.”8 But this word for ”feet” can also mean the place of the feet, as in ”the foot of the bed.” When Ruth lay down ”at his feet” all night, it clearly means at the foot of where Boaz was sleeping, not next to his actual toes. But in verses 4 and 7, where Ruth uncovered ”his feet,” it is more ambiguous. Did Ruth uncover Boaz's actual feet, or did she clear a place around his legs? Nielsen and many scholars and translators think it refers to a place, not a body part. Fair enough.

Then Nielsen springs her original contribution on us. The key to understanding this pa.s.sage lies in what precisely was uncovered, she says. The traditional interpretation says Ruth uncovered his feet. Some take this to mean she literally uncovered his feet, which makes no sense. Others think it means they had s.e.xual intercourse. Indeed, the verb ”to uncover” is part of an expression, ”to uncover the nakedness of,” that is especially common in Leviticus 18 as a euphemism for having s.e.x. But further consideration makes this less likely because there is no reference anywhere in the Hebrew Bible to a woman uncovering a man's nakedness. Whenever the expression ”uncover the nakedness of” is used, it means to ”uncover” a female, meaning to have s.e.x with her. For example, Levitical law says, ”You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister,”9 and goes on to prohibit ”uncovering the nakedness” of other close female relatives. But when it talks about uncovering the nakedness of a male relative, it means having s.e.x with that man's wife. This is what the otherwise confusing prohibition in Leviticus 18:7 a means: ”You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, which is the nakedness of your mother.” Ruth's uncovering of Boaz's ”feet” can't have the same meaning as uncovering the nakedness of a man in Leviticus. There is no biblical support for it. The closest parallels are the story of Lot being tricked into s.e.x by his daughters (see chapter 18) and the law about a woman who grabs a man's genitals (see chapter 12).

So what did Ruth uncover? Nielsen thinks the answer is (ta-dah!) Ruth herself. She proposes that what we witness in this story is Ruth's ”h.e.l.lo, big boy” moment. This is not explicit in the text, but Nielsen says the context and other texts in the Bible indicate that Ruth was communicating her availability and showing Boaz the goods.

There is support for this in other Bible pa.s.sages where a woman uncovers herself. The prime one is Ezekiel's notorious depiction of Jerusalem and Samaria as lewd wh.o.r.es: When she carried on her prost.i.tution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister.10 This and the other cases of women uncovering themselves are, admittedly, all described with disapproval, but Nielsen argues that the whole point in telling the story of Ruth was to show how she was an extraordinary character who did extraordinary things and was rewarded for them. Incidentally, there are a few examples of men uncovering themselves. These include the infamous story of Noah's drunkenness11 and David's dancing before the ark.12 Noah's exposure was clearly unintentional, and David's case is ambiguous because he was wearing some clothing, though it was very flimsy.

Nielsen finds further support for her interpretation in parallels between the story of Ruth and that of Tamar in Genesis 38 (see chapter 8). Both women were widows for whom the prospect of remarriage in the normal course of events was dim. Both were compelled to take matters into their own hands and to use trickery to get what they needed. Both used their s.e.xuality to accomplish their goals. Tamar dressed as a prost.i.tute. Ruth took off her clothes and gave Boaz a show. Her nakedness was (duh!) an invitation to Boaz to take her as a wife before she pranced around nude to other leading members of the Bethlehem community.

The Naked Truth: Evaluating the Proposal Nielsen's proposal is intriguing and inventive. It clarifies an episode that is otherwise difficult to understand. If Ruth was trying to seduce Boaz or even to allure him, it certainly made better sense for her to undress herself rather than him.

Unfortunately, and we say this with real regret, there is one big problem with Nielsen's proposal. The form of the verb ”to uncover” used in Ruth 3:4, 7 (piel) is transitive but not reflexive. For you non-English majors, this means that it must have an object. It must uncover something, and it cannot mean to uncover oneself or to undress. The latter meaning requires a reflexive form of the verb (either niphal or hithpael). Nielsen recognizes this, so she does not claim that the verb in Ruth can have a reflexive meaning-not exactly. Instead, she says that its object is ”implicit.” In other words, everybody knows Ruth uncovered something, but the text doesn't tell you what.

Sorry, gang. This is fudging. Nielsen's proposal is a semantic gimmick gussied up in a snazzy nightie.

But there is one possible escape hatch. Nielsen cites one other case where this same verb form has an implicit object and a reflexive meaning. She says, The verb ”uncover” is used in Isa. 57:8 without a direct object, but with an implicit ”your genitals.”...The woman turns her back on Yahweh, uncovers herself, and makes the bed wide when she buys the love of the bed from her lovers.13 The problem is that the meaning of Isaiah 57:8 is not as clear as Nielsen implies. The NRSV has a footnote about the line using the verb ”uncover”-”Meaning of Heb uncertain”-and the NRSV actually translates it with an object: For, in deserting me, you have uncovered your bed, you have gone up to it, you have made it wide.

”Bed” could even be translated as the object of all three verbs in these lines: ”you have uncovered, raised up, and widened your bed.” In any case, the fact that there is only one other place in the entire Hebrew Bible that has the meaning Nielsen wants to a.s.sign to the form of ”uncover” in Ruth-and that this place is uncertain-seriously weakens her proposed interpretation. If the form of the verb in Ruth were reflexive, Nielsen's interpretation would make perfect sense. But scholars have long recognized that this is not the case, and that is the reason why no one else has proposed her theory.

We are left with the text in Ruth that states that Ruth uncovered Boaz's feet or legs or the foot of his ”bed.” Exactly why she did this and what happened at the thres.h.i.+ng floor remain mysteries. But perhaps that is the point. With a story this loaded with romantic attraction and innuendo, maybe the author left it to readers to imagine exactly what happened under Boaz's covers.

22.

Did Jacob Use Ancient v.i.a.g.r.a?

FOR MOST SINGLE GUYS, going from no s.e.xual partners to four in the s.p.a.ce of a week would be cause for celebration. But when it happened to Jacob the patriarch, he must have learned that the human body is not an unending font of s.e.xual energy. Almost overnight his tent flap became a revolving door for spouses and concubines wanting to leave with more than they came with. We can only imagine that he longed for a night alone to recharge his batteries and just plain think. Poor Jake learned the hard way to ”be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”

That's why it seems possible to us that Jacob had a little help in rising to the occasion night after night. Let's examine the hard facts to see if he might have relied on an ancient form of v.i.a.g.r.a.

Big Love But first, just how did Jacob end up with four s.e.xual partners? No, he didn't go hog wild with an Asian mail-order-wife scheme. Rather, as we know from chapter 14, he was tricked into marrying the ”wild cow,” Leah, when he was really in love with Leah's younger sister, ”the ewe,” Rachel. But we haven't yet mentioned that these two sisters brought other s.e.xual partners into the relations.h.i.+p as well-their respective handmaids, Zilpah and Bilhah, who then became Jacob's concubines. To Jacob, it must have seemed like an embarra.s.sment of riches (at least for the first couple of nights), especially since concubines were basically female s.e.x slaves. In the world of the Bible, they were also sometimes called upon to act as surrogate mothers, usually when the wife was childless. But in this case, the concubines were pressed into service like overused backup incubators as Leah and Rachel competed in a high-stakes game of fertility, family status, and love.

Upon marrying Jacob, Leah and Rachel wasted no time in trying to build their dynasties through him.1 This heated s.e.xual compet.i.tion lasted most of their adult lives. Leah took an early lead, giving birth to four sons in a row. The Bible says that because Leah was unloved, G.o.d opened her womb. Rachel, who was barren, complained about this to Jacob, who we a.s.sume was doing his best to impregnate his favorite wife, but her complaint only angered him. Who can blame him? By that time he was probably feeling as sore as an overworked mule, hobbling around the camp and longing for his bachelor days.

So Rachel did what any desperate woman of that era did: she made her husband sleep with her servant. What Jacob thought of this is unrecorded, but Bilhah bore two sons by him, and these kids were credited to Rachel's account. Leah, meanwhile, had stopped having children, but sensing a ninth-inning comeback by Rachel, she brought in her relief pitcher, the handmaid Zilpah, who bore two sons by Jacob. At that point, Jake the Stud had eight children. And here is where the plot thickens, because the births of his final five children involved a plant with very mysterious properties.

Harry Potter and the Bible One day, Reuben, Jacob's oldest son, found some mandrakes in the field and brought them to his mother, Leah. Apparently this was a big deal, because Rachel found out about it and begged Leah to give her some. Leah refused at first, until Rachel promised that Leah could ”borrow” Jacob for a night in exchange for the mandrakes. Jacob then slept with Leah and she bore her fifth and sixth sons, Issachar and Zebulun, as well as a daughter, Dinah. Rachel also bore two sons, Joseph and Benjamin.

What were these mystery plants, these mandrakes, and why did the Bible mention them? The story seems to imply that they played a role in the production of Jacob's last five children-in Leah's regaining fertility and in Rachel's overcoming barrenness. Fans of Harry Potter have a head start on this answer because in that series the young wizards-in-training are taught about the properties of mandrakes.2 In Harry Potter's world, mandrakes restore people and animals that have been petrified, transfigured, or cursed to their original state. But mandrakes are also extremely dangerous. Their tops are pleasant enough-leafy and purplish green. But their roots are small babies whose cry is fatal to human beings.

J. K. Rowling's description is obviously exaggerated, but it's not pure fiction. Mandrakes are real plants. They have long been rumored to hold magical powers. And in fact, they do have narcotic properties and have been used at different times as an anesthetic to induce sleep and as a stimulant. The botanical name of mandrakes is mandragora officinarum. They are native to the eastern Mediterranean area, so they grow near Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine, especially in rocky places. They are a tuber or root vegetable, a species of the potato family, and as with potatoes and carrots, their underground root is their fruit. Their color is similar to the description in Harry Potter. They have dark green leaves around a purple flower, and their leafy tops grow close to the ground, like lettuce.

Here is where mandrakes get weird: the roots do often look like a small person, similar to what's described in Harry Potter. They are usually about the size of a little apple but have been reported to grow several feet in length. The humanlike shape and the narcotic properties of mandrake roots have given rise to superst.i.tions and legends about them over the ages. In the first century CE, the Jewish historian Josephus reported that the mandrake plant would kill a person who pulled it up.3 In the Middle Ages, a more colorful legend developed. Mandrakes were reputed to grow under gallows. They supposedly sprang from the s.e.m.e.n or urine of the men who were hanged there and resembled them. When uprooted, they were thought to emit a horrible scream that would instantly kill any person or animal within earshot. Shakespeare alludes to this superst.i.tion in Romeo and Juliet, although in his version the effect of hearing the mandrake's scream is insanity rather than death.

Alack, alack, is it not like that I, So early waking, what with loathsome smells, And shrieks like mandrakes 'torn out of the earth That living mortals, hearing them, run mad.4 J. K. Rowling obviously adapted these legends in writing her popular wizard books.