top of page

Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian - Course Overview & Discussion Assignments

Apr 13

28 min read

0

6

0

Here is a complete list of the resources used in this class and my responses to the weekly discussion questions. This shows my engagement with the Bible according to progressive theology and values.


Course Objectives:


  • Explain the origins of the Bible as we have it today.

  • Identify the ways the church uses and interprets the Bible and the ways the academy uses and interprets the Bible.

  • Describe the methods used to interpret Biblical texts.

  • Explain how the interpretive methods can be used for preaching and teaching in a local parish setting.

  • Learning objectives for all courses:  Demonstrate strengthening of inter- and intrapersonal assets as described by Marks 1.1, 3.5, 7.6, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.6.


Resources Used


Required

Recommended

  • Brown, Michael Joseph. What They Don’t Tell You: A Survivor’s Guide to Biblical Studies. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

  • Ehrman, Bart. A Brief Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

  • The United Church of Christ website: www.ucc.org. 



Weekly Discussion Questions

 

Describe what it means that Progressive Christians “take the Bible seriously but not literally.”


Progressive Christian biblical interpretation us more nuanced that other approaches and acknowledges both the Bible's inherent wisdom and its contextual nature. Rather than adhering to literal interpretations, the Progressive perspective prioritizes a thoughtful and personal engagement with scripture, recognizing that the Bible speaks to each of us individually and collectively, and that it is both a useful guide to living our modern lives as well as a vivid illustration of the human shadow and the horrible things that can happen when that shadow is not integrated into our individual and collective consciousnesses. 


A core principle of Progressive interpretation of the Bible is the acknowledgment of its human authorship. As Progressive Christians, we understand that the Bible as inspired by the Holy Spirit but written by fallible individuals. This difference between divine inspiration and divine dictation informs us that the scriptures, while sacred, are not infallible. They reflect the complexities of human experience, shaped by the limitations and perspectives of their authors and their lived experience, gifts, traumas and woundings. They were people just like us who lived at pivotal moments in the history of our faith.


For us, understanding the historical and social contexts of biblical texts is crucial. The stories, teachings, and laws within the Bible are part of the cultures and eras they came from. This necessitates careful consideration and analysis of those circumstances to achieve an accurate and responsible interpretation. This encourages us to engage in a deeper exploration of the text, moving beyond the surface-level, legalistic and literal readings of others to uncover rich, contextual meanings for ourselves in our times.


Using thought processes like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, we as Progressive Christians integrate scripture, tradition, reason and lived experience in our interpretation of The Word. Rather than isolating the Bible from human experience and critical thought, we recognize the value of these elements in illuminating scripture and making it relevant to us. Logic and reason together with respect for the diversity of other peoples’ lives and stories encourage compassion and provide valuable insights that enrich our faith and inform our actions in today's world.


We accept that inconsistencies and contradictions within the Bible exist but are not grounds for rejection but invitations for deeper reflection. These inconsistences only serve to affirm the integrity of a faith that would choose to know they exist yet keep them in our scriptures to more accurately reflect the human condition and our evolving understanding of God's will over time. We embrace contradiction, complexity and ambiguity with humility and thoughtfulness.


The Holy Spirit plays a vital role in interpretation. We believe the Spirit guided the biblical authors and continues to guide us today, creating fresh interpretations and new revelations in the context of our modern lives. This dynamic relationship has kept the Word relevant for more than 2000 years! 


A hermeneutic of compassion, love, and justice guides and permeates our interpretation. This approach prioritizes the spirit of the law over literal readings, emphasizing interpretations that uplift the marginalized and promote peace in the spirit of Jesus’ ministry. 


We believe that "God is still speaking" through the Bible – even after two millennia – so we approach its texts as an ongoing conversation. We address difficult passages with honesty and a willingness to grapple with their meaning. While we acknowledge the Bible's potential for misuse, we advocate for its thoughtful application as a tool for healing, justice, and love.

 

Discuss the “Fifteen Passages to Know by Heart.” In your response,indicate whether or not you agree with the importance of knowing Scripture by heart and list the passages you would suggest for a similar list to “know by heart” or to “be familiar with.”


I'm completely on board with the value of "Fifteen Passages to Know by Heart" and with committing scripture to memory. It's not just about stuffing my brain with words; it's about embedding those words into my deeper psyche and my very being. When I've got scripture locked in my heart, it's like having a spiritual toolbox always at hand whenever I need it. Need comfort? It's there. Seeking direction? It's there. Feeling overwhelmed? It's there. That kind of internal resource is invaluable to me.


When I'm facing a tough decision or my heart is troubled, a memorized verse, a favorite prayer, or a beloved lyric from a hymn or anthem can pop into my mind, providing a sense of clarity and comfort. How often have I cited Mark 12:28-31 as the core of my theology or as a reminder to love a difficult neighbor! How often have I exclaimed "The Lord will make a way somehow!" in a moment of trial. Or quitely uttered, "Lord Jesus Christ, thank you for your mercy!" when I've felt blessed. Memorizing these precious theological treasures makes the Word of God live and breathe for me!


While the original "Fifteen" from the UCC document is a solid start, I'd want to tailor a list to really hit home on the core of what it means to me to live a life of faith: love, justice, and genuine connection. Here's what I'd propose:


For memorization:

  • Deuteronomy 6:4-5: Yes! This is the heart of it all - loving God with everything you've got.

  • Mark 12:28-31: Love God, love your neighbor. The #1 verse to me in my personal theology!

  • John 3:16: The classic reminder of God's immense love.

  • Psalm 23:6: A source of comfort, knowing goodness and mercy follow us.

  • Micah 6:8: A clear call to not just believed but to live as a Christian: with justice, kindness, and humility.

  • Romans 8:38-39: The unwavering security of God's unchangeable and everlasting love.

  • 1 Corinthians 13:13: Faith, hope, and love - the essentials. A reinforcement of Mark 12.


For familiarity and deeper understanding/contemplation:

  • John 14:1-2: Assurance of a place in God's presence.

  • Matthew 25:35-40: Recognizing Christ in the marginalized.

  • Revelation 21:3-4: A vision of hope from a very personl God who is near to us.

  • Isaiah 43:1-2: God's presence in our trials and God's care for us..

  • Galatians 3:28: The radical inclusivity of Christ. We are all part of one body.

  • Acts 10:34-35: God's impartiality.

  • 2 Corinthians 5:17: The transformative power of Christ.

  • Romans 12:2: Transformation through renewed thinking and an invitation to curiosity and learning.


Why these choices? 

  • They cover a broad spectrum of the Christian experience: love, justice, comfort, hope, and transformation.

  • They blend passages that are easily memorized with those that require deeper reflection.

  • They provide practical tools for living out my faith in a complex, scary world.


Ultimately, whether I memorize a verse or simply become deeply familiar with its spirit and meaning, the goal is the same: to let the Word of God shape my heart, guide my actions and my relationships, and provide me "wisdom on demand" then I need it the most!

 

THE BIBLE AS RECEIVED: List the factors that made the process of finalizing the biblical books in writing a complex one for both the Old and New Testaments.  Outline the reasons that some books are in the Apocrypha rather than in the Old Testament canon itself.

The Bible did not drop out of the sky, “ex nihilo”, fully formed. It's the weaving together of many voices and traditions, and as a result contains more than a few inconsistencies and contradictions - a powerful attestation to the fact that it is a divinely inspired work of fallible humans and not direct word of God. We only have to look at today's modern book publishing processes to see that in the production of a single book, there are many iterations written not only by the author but also by editors and publishers before the final book sees the light of day. And new editions of the same book over time often contain edits that update it to contain new insights. The Bible was no different and was created under even more complex and challenging circumstances across times and locations… and without internet!


Finalizing the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, proved complex due to many different factors. Firstly, the Biblical world was a world of writing that was living inside a world of very limited literacy, and writing and preserving Bible texts was a job given only to an elite class of scribes. This prevented widespread access to the Bible and made standardization of the texts nearly impossible - especially across large distances. Second, many biblical books lack clear authorship, because they are compilations from many different sources and periods of time. That made it difficult to establish a definitive "original" version. Third, ancient writing practices allowed for evolving texts, so every human that touched the text felt a certain freedom to make changed. Additions, subtractions, and adaptations were common, resulting in varied versions of the same work. Fourth, oral tradition played a significant role. Stories and teachings shared orally before widespread writing, inevitably changed over time (think the “telephone” game we played when we were kids), impacting the accuracy of written versions that came later. Fifth, the processes of writing, compiling, and editing were intertwined. Ancient scribes often modified texts to align with contemporary beliefs. Lastly, canonization, the process of recognizing authoritative texts, was gradual and contested. Debates over the inclusion of certain books persisted for centuries, reflecting evolving religious communities and beliefs.


The Apocrypha, or what the Catholic tradition refers to as the deuterocanonical books, differ from the Hebrew Bible canon due to several key factors. The development of distinct canons within Jewish communities, specifically the Hebrew and Greek-speaking communities, resulted in different sets of texts. The Hebrew canon reflected the concerns of the Jewish community that was rebuilding its identity after exile in Babylon and tended to prioritize the contemporary concerns of that community and the texts already written Hebrew. In contrast, the Greek Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew scriptures used by Greek-speaking Jews, included a broader range of texts, reflecting the diverse religious and cultural landscape of Hellenistic Judaism. There were also debates over authorship, dating, and original language. Texts with unclear authorship or those composed after certain dates were often excluded from the developing Hebrew canon.

 

THE CONTENTS: List the reasons scholars think there are three separate portions of Isaiah. Why might it be  important as a preacher/pastor to understand this academic distinction?


The decision by scholars to divide the Book of Isaiah into three distinct sections - Proto-, Deutero-, and Trito-Isaiah - rests primarily on the shifting timeframes and thematic developments observed within the text and represents one of the most extreme examples of “editorial activity” in all the books of the prophets. Chapters 1-39 are generally attributed to the prophet Isaiah himself, because they reflect the socio-political landscape of the 8th century BCE. However, chapters 40-55, Deutero-Isaiah, exhibit a pronounced shift in the timeline, presupposing the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BCE (long after Isaiah’s death). The explicit mention of historical figures and events from this later period, strongly suggest a different author or authors. Finally, chapters 56-66, Trito-Isaiah, appear to reflect the post-exilic period, addressing the challenges of rebuilding the Temple and community in Jerusalem. These chapters delve into issues of social justice, ritual purity, and the establishment of a renewed covenant with God. The different historical settings and theological focuses in each section provide pretty strong evidence for multiple authorship.


For a pastor or preacher, understanding this academic distinction is important and useful for several reasons. Firstly, context is everything. Putting each of the “Isaiah’s” in the proper historical and cultural context allows for a more nuanced and historically grounded interpretation of the text. By recognizing the different contexts, a preacher can better appreciate the specific messages created for each “audience” in each timeframe. For example, the powerful imagery of comfort and restoration in Deutero-Isaiah gains deeper impact when look at the context of the Babylonian exile (and link it to similar situations in our present time). Acknowledging the composite nature of the book also encourages intellectual honesty. Rather than presenting Isaiah as a single book, a preacher can acknowledge the complexity of its formation and the diverse voices it encompasses. 


Because each section of Isaiah offers a unique theological perspective, a preacher can leverage those contributions. Deutero-Isaiah, with its profound reflections on monotheism, creation, and the suffering servant, offers rich material for sermons addressing themes of hope, redemption, and the faithfulness of God. By isolating and focusing on this portion, a preacher can delve deeply into its unique theological insights. Trito-Isiaiah, with its focus on the post-exilic period and themes of social justice and inclusion for those who were marginalized in ancient Israelite society, would lend itself well to a sermon about the liberation of today’s marginalized peoples and could be used to illustrate themes of liberation theology, womanist theology, queer theology, black theology, etc.


Finally, it’s important to acknowledge the inherent tension between critical scholarship and pastoral ministry. While some may argue that focusing on the “trilogy” nature of the book detracts from its spiritual value, others will argue that a deeper understanding of the context will give the text a greater spiritual value. A pastor must find a way to honor scripture while also acknowledging the scholarly understanding of the text in a way that is accessible to the listener, so it is probably important to use good judgement when deciding to highlight the critical aspects of biblical interpretation or not. Does it serve the overall message, or is it just a distraction? We must resist the temptation to fall into “bible nerdism” if it doesn’t serve the message.

 

Identify the categories of exegesis used in the commentaries on Joshua. Give examples of what you learned from each identified type.


This exploration of Rev. Dr. Anna Grant-Henderson's exegesis has been an eye-opening experience for me, because I'm accustomed to only hearing biblical passages dissected within the context of sermons. To read such a methodical, written approach to exegesis is a first for me, and it's profoundly changed how I understand biblical interpretation (which I assume was the purpose of this lesson!).


I think that starting with her theological analysis was important in order to acknowledge that our current values are different than biblical values and to put this in the context of the times of the text. By saying that the values of our times have changed, it allows us to set aside our personal reactions to the colonization of Canaan and try to interpret it through the lens of what was "normal" for the Israelites of Joshua's time. Grant-Henderson's analysis forces us to confront the ethical complexities of the text, to wrestle with the difficult aspects of the conquest narrative. She gives us a unique opportunity to see how our values have shifted over many centuries to be more aligned with the message of Jesus Christ and His gospel of love and gives us hope that we can continue to advance as a species more toward The Way. 


The historical criticism, for instance, revealed layers of the text I'd never considered. I'd always heard the story of Joshua crossing the Jordan as a straightforward, miraculous event. But to see it placed within the context of a long, complex history and to acknowledge the archaeological evidence transformed the narrative for me. It wasn't just a story anymore; it was a testament to the evolving identity of a people, a reflection of their struggles and their faith. I think when we read about something that took place over tens or hundreds of years in just a few minutes, it loses its impact I think historical criticism encourages us to look at time differently so we let it really fully impact us.


Similarly, Grant-Henderson's literary criticism unveiled the artistry of the text in a way sermons rarely do. I'd heard about the miracle, of course, but I'd never considered the author's deliberate use of literary devices like suspense, the careful repetition of key words, or the weaving together of different traditions. Seeing these literary techniques laid out in such a clear, structured way allowed me to appreciate the text on a whole new level. It wasn't just about the "what" of the story, but the "how," and that "how" was a masterpiece of storytelling.

 

Summarize what you learned about the story of Thomas as though you are presenting it to a Bible study group before a discussion.


Today, I want to embark with you on a journey into one of the most familiar, yet often superficially understood, passages in the Gospel of John: the story of Thomas in John 20:19-31. This passage is so well known that it has given us the phrase "Doubting Thomas" - a skeptic who refuses to believe without direct witness or experience. However, rather than simply looking at the narrative again, we'll be focusing on trying to understand the text itself, engaging in what scholars call biblical exegesis, by going back to the original Greek text and trying to discover new meanings that have been hidden from us until now.


We'll explore the nuances of language, historical context, and the theological implications, and because I don't speak any Greek, we'll use the commentary of some great biblical scholars who actually know the language as our guide. This will give us a detailed understanding of the text, focusing on the linguistic details we've never considered before and their possible implications.


The story of Thomas isn’t merely a historical account of a post-resurrection encounter. It's a window into the challenges and questions faced by the early Christian community, particularly those who didn't witness the resurrected Christ firsthand. This passage grapples with the fundamental question: how can one believe without seeing? That quesiton is as relevant for us to day as it was for the early Christians who gathered about 60 years after the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus.


We'll be paying close attention to the Greek text, examining the verb tenses, the use of participles, and the potential range of meanings for key words. For instance, the commentary draws our attention to the word ἀφίημι (aphiēmi), often translated as "forgive," and how its broader meaning of "release" or "let go" might offer a different perspective on Jesus' commission to the disciples. We will also look at the word ἁμαρτία (hamartia), and the implications of it meaning "brokenness" as opposed to "moral failing".


Furthermore, we'll consider the historical context of the late first century, when John's Gospel was likely written. The question of how to maintain faith in the absence of eyewitness testimony was a pressing concern for the early church. The commentary suggests that John's purpose is to affirm that belief through hearing the testimony of others is a valid and powerful path to experiencing life in Christ. This has lead to the continued importance of "testimony" in our faith today.


We'll also explore the significance of Jesus' repeated greeting, "Peace to you" (Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν), and how it's more than just a mere salutation, embodying a deeper sense of communal reconciliation and messianic salvation. We will also explore the commentary's exploration of Thomas as "Confessing Thomas" rather than "Doubting Thomas", and how this shift in perspective can change our understanding of the text.


Let us approach this study with open minds and hearts, ready to engage with the text and with one another, as we seek a deeper understanding of God's word.

 

Describe how the different translations of Song of Solomon render 1:5-6. Infer what the best translation might be given the time at which the poem was written and its geographical location/setting.  Discuss how such translation differences could both influence social perceptions about women of color and be influenced by social perceptions about women of color.

 

Different translations of Song of Solomon 1:5-6 present different nuances, all of which ultimately have an impact on how the reader percieves the text. One only need look at a tool like https://www.biblestudytools.com/song-of-solomon/1-5-compare.html to see a comparison of all the different translations of the first verse alone. The variations are mind-boggling!


The Common English Bible (CEB) renders verse 5 as, "Dark am I, and lovely, daughters of Jerusalem— like the black tents of the Kedar nomads, like the curtains of Solomon’s palace. Don’t stare at me because I’m darkened by the sun’s gaze," and verse 6 as, "My own brothers were angry with me. They made me a caretaker of the vineyards— but I couldn’t care for my own vineyard." Ariel and Chana Bloch's translation offers, "I am dark, daughters of Jerusalem, and I am beautiful! Dark as the tents of Kedar, lavish as Solomon's tapestries. Do not see me only as dark: the sun has stared at me. My brothers were angry with me, they made me guard the vineyards. I have not guarded my own." The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is noted for translation problems, offering phrases but not the full verses, primarily focusing on the speaker's appearance.  Many translations say use "black BUT lovely" instead of "black AND lovely", which changes the interpretation in material ways. 


Given the poem's context, referencing the "tents of Kedar," a nomadic Arab tribe known for their dark goat-hair tents, is crucial to understanding the context of the culture of those times. This imagery suggests the woman has natural, sun-tanned dark skin, reflecting an outdoor lifestyle. The contrast with "Solomon's tapestries" highlights a different, more sheltered and refined form of beauty. She is both. Therefore, a translation that preserves the speaker's direct assertion of her dark yet beautiful appearance, linking her darkness to the Kedar tents, is most fitting. Ariel and Chana Bloch's translation achieves this by stating, "I am dark, daughters of Jerusalem, and I am beautiful! Dark as the tents of Kedar, lavish as Solomon's tapestries. Do not see me only as dark: the sun has stared at me." This version acknowledges her darkness without apology, affirming her beauty, which is also fitting of the romantic and erotic imagery of the book. But by saying "Do not see me only as dark", the translation is acknowledging that there was some perceived bias or perhaps even fetishization of darkness in her time.


Emphasizing "dark" alongside "beautiful," as Bloch's translation challenges negative connotations associated with darker skin tones. Conversely, softening the term or omitting the context of her labor might make it seem as if their was something wrong with these things. Contextualizing her darkness, as with the Kedar tents or vineyard work, provides a relatable explanation that carries no judgement. Translators influenced by societal biases might unintentionally reinforce negative stereotypes, for instance, by toning down the speaker's color, boldness, sensuality or her labor.


Social perceptions will always influence translation choices. Translators in societies with colorism might hesitate to use "dark" positively, opting for ambiguous terms - this bias still exists in some communities of color today. Western beauty standards might impede the authentic portrayal of non-Western beauty. Negative stereotypes about women of color can lead to inaccurate interpretations of the text, distorting its innocent sensuality. The historical tendency to tone down and "allegorize" the Song, as seen with Augustine and Jerome, can be made even worse when the subject's appearance is already subject to social prejudice. In essence, the translation of Song of Solomon 1:5-6 is not merely linguistic but a reflection of and influence on social perceptions of women of color.

 

Explain why we can trace the history of the text of the New Testament to within 100 years of the time of Christ. Describe how the plethora of examples might affect our understanding of the text today.


The ability to trace the history of the New Testament text to within a remarkably short period of its original creation is a significant factor in establishing its reliability and credibility, both from an academic perspective as well as from the point of view of the faithful. Our faith asks us to have... well... a lot of faith in things that we cannot observe or witness directly. Knowing that we actually have access to documents written very close to the time of the stories of the Bible gives us "confidence by proxy" that our faith is directly connected to what actually happened. 


For example, the discovery of papyrus fragments, most notably Papyrus 52 (P52), provides concrete evidence. P52, containing portions of John's Gospel, is dated to between 100 and 150 AD. Given that John's Gospel is estimated to have been written around 96 AD, this fragment places us within a few decades of the original writing. The potential discovery of first-century fragments of Mark's Gospel in Egypt further reinforces this timeline. The existence of 10-15 manuscripts within the first 100 years of the New Testament's completion, and the rapid increase to 48 by 300 AD and 69 by 400 AD, further illustrates this close connection in time. Compared to other ancient texts, where gaps of centuries are common, this proximity gives significant weight to the accuracy of the New Testament's traceability back to original texts.   


The sheer volume of New Testament manuscripts recovered from across the region - more than 5,800 Greek fragments, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 25,000 handwritten copies in all languages - profoundly affects our understanding of the text today and gives it special meaning. That is because this abundance allows for a high degree of confidence that we know (through reconstruction) the actual words of the original authors. Although variations exist, the vast majority are minor, such as spelling differences, and do not alter the text's core meaning. The process of textual criticism, facilitated by this wealth of evidence, enables biblical scholars to compare different readings and identify variations that arose during the copying process. By analyzing the age, quality, and geographical distribution of these manuscripts, scholars can discern the most likely original wording. This ultimately becomes an incredible gift to us not just as Christians, but as humans, because it allows us to witness the collective lives and wisdom of a diverse group of our ancestors who lived more than 80 generations ago.


More importantly, this large trove of manuscripts confirms the reliability of the New Testament's core doctrines. Despite the many textual variants, estimated at hundreds of thousands, only a small percentage, around 1%, are considered material and potentially affect understanding. Even these significant variants do not contradict the fundamental teachings of the New Testament. Scholars estimate that at least 95%, and possibly as high as 99%, of the original words have been recovered. This high degree of recovery reinforces the authenticity of the text and its core message, and gives us confidence that the faith we practice across the millenia has an unbroken line back to its source. This is for me a new understanding of our sacred scripture, and one I will treasure knowing and sharing in my future role as pastor. 


Source: Slick, M. (n.d.). Manuscript Evidence for Superior New Testament Reliability. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry: http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

 

Outline the major differences between the story of the building of the Jerusalem Temple as told in 1 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles. Infer the reasons for those differences based on your reading of Guenther.


The accounts of the Jerusalem Temple's construction, as found in 1 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles, diverge significantly, revealing contrasting theological and historical interpretations. 1 Kings positions Solomon as the primary builder, framing David's exclusion as a consequence of his conflict-laden reign and perceived covenantal breaches. This narrative, informed by the Deuteronomistic perspective, doesn't shy away from highlighting Solomon's own transgressions, particularly his many foreign alliances (read: wives). The Deuteronomistic History, with its emphasis on explaining the exile as divine retribution for Israel's infidelity to its covenant with God, portrays the Temple's construction within the broader context of covenantal obligations, a framework that ultimately casts nearly all Davidic kings (except for Josiah), in a negative light.


In contrast, 1-2 Chronicles, written from the Chronicler's point of view, elevates David to the architect and organizer of the Temple project, emphasizing the Temple's centrality in post-exilic restoration. This account, created to instill hope and unity within a post-exilic community grappling with rebuilding its identity, idealizes David and centers the roles of Levites and priests, reflecting a focus on establishing proper Temple worship and fostering national cohesion. The Chronicler's selective presentation of history, which minimizes or omits negative aspects of David and Solomon, serves to create a more positive and inspiring narrative tailored to a post-exilic audience.


These discrepancies extend beyond mere factual differences; they're on purpose and represent deliberate interpretive choices shaped by distinct theological agendas and historical contexts. As Guenther observes, each narrative is strategically tailored to address the specific needs and concerns of its intended readership. The Deuteronomistic History, aimed at exilic and post-exilic Israelites, seeks to explain the exile as a consequence of covenantal infidelity, stressing adherence to Mosaic law and centralized worship. Conversely, the Chronicler, addressing a post-exilic community in the process of rebuilding, and instead seeks to inspire and unify by underscoring the continuity of Israel's history, the significance of the Temple and its rituals, and the continuity of the Davidic lineage, providing a more optimistic and idealized reconstruction of their past.

 

Describe the historical setting of the Book of Ruth and any relevant disagreements about its purpose and when it was written.


In its dominant narrative (see my last discussion submission for week 4 for Donaldson’s alternative narrative), The Book of Ruth presents a timeless, beloved story of loyalty, redemption, and divine providence. Consulting two different commentaries unearths interesting perspectives. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky's "The JPS Bible Commentary: Ruth" offers a detailed analysis, paying close attention to the intricacies of the Hebrew text and primarily to its cultural context. Their work illuminates the book's themes, particularly the unwavering loyalty displayed by Ruth and the concept of hesed, or loving-kindness, which permeates the narrative. Furthermore, this commentary addresses the social implications of the story, shedding light on the vulnerability of women and foreigners in ancient Israelite society, and how the book addresses those issues. 


Robert L. Hubbard, Jr.'s commentary, "The Book of Ruth," part of the New International Commentary on the Old Testament series, offers a very different, more politically contexual approach. Hubbard meticulously explores the possibility of female authorship, a perspective that challenges traditional interpretations. Furthermore, he argues that the narrative serves a potential political function, acting as a subtle counter-narrative to opposition against the Davidic monarchy during Solomon’s reign. He contextualizes Ruth's significance within the broader biblical narrative, emphasizing her role in establishing David's lineage and highlighting the theological implications of her actions. Like Cohn Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky, Hubbard also explores Ruth’s embodiment of hesed and her integration into the Israelite community.


The historical backdrop of the Book of Ruth is crucial to its interpretation. The narrative is set in a period characterized by political instability and social upheaval in ancient Israel. This era, as described in the Book of Judges, was marked by cycles of disobedience, oppression, and divine deliverance. The story starts out with a famine in Bethlehem, a very real reminder of the harsh realities of life in that era, compelling Naomi and her family to seek refuge in Moab. This migration underscores the vulnerability of people and families in the face of food scarcity and economic hardship and reminds us that today’s immigration crisis is driven by some of those same factors.


As we progress beyond the most well-known part of the story, Naomi and Ruth return to Bethlehem, and the narrative shifts its focus to the interactions between Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, a wealthy and kind relative of Naomi’s late husband. The events that unfold highlight the importance of kinship and redemption within Israelite society, particularly the practice of the kinsman-redeemer, which plays a pivotal role in the story's resolution as Boaz takes Ruth as his wife. The book culminates with a genealogy that traces the lineage of King David back to Boaz and Ruth, establishing a connection between this seemingly simple story and the rise of the Davidic monarchy and ultimately the birth of Jesus. This genealogical link has led scholars like Hubbard to interpret the book as a political text, intended to legitimize David's kingship by emphasizing his Moabite ancestry.


However, the purpose and dating of the Book of Ruth remain subjects of scholarly debate. Scholars like Hubbard argue that the book primarily serves to provide a genealogy for David, emphasizing God's hand in establishing his lineage. Others like Cohn Eskenazi and Frymer-Kensky emphasize the book's ethical and theological themes, such as loyalty, kindness, and the inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant community. This perspective highlights the book's message of God's grace and universal love, transcending ethnic and national boundaries. Other interpretations in this vein are too numerous to name in a short discussion like this.


The dating of the Book of Ruth is also not universally agreed upon. Some scholars advocate for an early date during the monarchy, based on its connection to David's lineage. Others propose a later date, during the post-exilic period, citing linguistic and thematic similarities to other late Old Testament texts. The absence of definitive evidence has resulted in a lack of consensus among scholars, leaving the book's precise dating uncertain. But regardless of its specific date of composition, the Book of Ruth continues to resonate with readers across cultures and generations, offering its lessons about loyalty, kindness, and the enduring power of divine providence to many. But from Donaldson’s perspective of displaced and colonized peoples, it offers a very different lesson about cultural assimilation and the implications of leaving your people behind.

 

Discuss how you could introduce Ringe’s points about the interpretation of the Bible by women to a gender-inclusive Bible study group. Where might you get pushback? From whom?


If I were planning to introduce Sharon Ringe's ideas about women and biblical interpretation to our gender-inclusive Bible study group, setting an open and respectful tone from the outset would be essential. My approach would prioritize facilitating thoughtful exploration over simply delivering information. Essentially teaching people to scripturally fish instead of giving them fish.


I'd start by grounding our discussion in Ringe's foundational point that interpretation is an active process, deeply influenced by the reader's context. I'd explain the importance she places on understanding the original setting, framing this as a general principle of careful reading that we can all agree on before layering in the specific focus on gender. I'd share Kathy's admonition to me not to use scripture to prove your own points, but rather to uncover and unlayer what God might want to say to us through the process of engaging with scripture from different angles.


From there, I would introduce Ringe's specific insights regarding women readers. I'd briefly explain her reasoning: that a woman's unique life experiences inevitably shape how she engages with the text, the questions she brings, and the meanings she derives. My aim would be to present this perspective as valid and naturally arising from lived reality. I'd directly address the potential question about the legitimacy of focusing on topics perhaps not central to the original authors, presenting Ringe's argument that exploring women's presence (and absence) in the text is valuable and can uncover hidden assumptions – a kind of "unmasking" of underlying values.

 

Handling the Bible's complex and often "ambivalent" power in women's lives requires care. I would concisely present both sides Ringe highlights – its capacity for liberation and hope alongside its potential to feel alienating or to reinforce marginalization. Acknowledging this tension honestly is key. To counter any monolithic view of "feminist interpretation," I'd quickly outline the spectrum of approaches Ringe describes, showing the diversity in how women engage with scripture, from affirmation to critique.


I'd anticipate that exploring interpretation through a gender lens might be challenging for some. Before opening the discussion widely, I would gently name potential areas of discomfort – perhaps resistance from traditional views on authority, unfamiliarity with feminist thought, concerns about divisiveness, or even feelings of defensiveness. By acknowledging these possibilities upfront, I’d aim to normalize potential disagreement and frame it as part of the exploration process. My explicit strategy would be to consistently steer the conversation toward respectful dialogue, mutual listening, and valuing diverse insights, rather than letting it become polarized.


Ultimately, my goal for the session wouldn't be to enforce a single interpretive method. Instead, I'd use Ringe's framework to help everyone in the group become more self-aware, flexible, curious readers. The aim would be to better appreciate why our backgrounds and assumptions matter when we read, and to understand how intentionally including perspectives that have often been overlooked, such as those of women, can lead to a richer, deeper, and more meaningful engagement with the Bible for all of us. It doesn't mean that we have to give up longstanding, precious interpretations of biblical text; it simply means we recognize that there are alternative interpretations that have the potential to have deep and meaninful impact on other people's lives, and potentially our own if we allow it.

 

Write a review of the movie version of the Book of Ruth, including examples of where the movie does and does not follow the story as told in the Bible.


Okay, so, I'll admit, my usual movie tastes lean more towards, you know, stuff made after MTV was a thing. But, those old-school Hollywood biblical epics? They had a certain something. And 'Story of Ruth' from '60? Surprisingly, I got into it much more than I thought I would. I guess it was the excitement of seeing the Ruth story we've been digging into in class actually played out on screen by real human beings that inspired me most.


But while the product of classic Hollywood sought to translate a beloved Old Testament story onto the big screen and showed a great deal of respect for its source material, it did take enormous creative license, particularly in its first half, by offering a dramatically embellished narrative that departs significantly from the relatively short biblical account. While this made for a romantic and suspenseful movie that met Hollywood requirements for length and drama, we must put our “Bible goggles” on to separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff and engage in careful exegesis to understand what parts of the story were scripturally faithful and what parts of it were Hollywood glitz and glamour.


The most striking divergence between the two lies in the extensive backstory invented entirely for the film, which takes up most of the first half of the movie. The biblical Book of Ruth introduces its heroine simply as a Moabite woman who married Naomi’s son. The movie, however, spends nearly an hour constructing a detailed past for her. In the film version, Ruth is raised from childhood within the cult of the Moabite deity Chemosh, eventually becoming a dedicated priestess. The film depicts elaborate pagan rituals and even includes a gut-wrenching scene where Ruth witnesses, and is deeply disturbed by, preparations for a child sacrifice. This entire narrative serves to provide Ruth with a dramatic motivation for her later disillusionment with Moabite religion and her turn towards the God of Israel, yet it finds no basis whatsoever in the scriptural text.


Additionally, the 1960 film may use Moab as a backdrop, but it populates it with a culture that is in fact not at all known, especially regarding religious practices. The depiction serves the film's narrative by creating a dramatic, "pagan" world for Ruth to escape, rather than attempting an authentic reconstruction of Moabite society based on the limited evidence available. We must therefore see the Moab presented in the film as Hollywood storytelling, not a historically accurate representation. It would have actually been impossible to accurately depict Moabite culture and religious practices for the first 54 minutes of the film anyway, because – although Moab is discussed extensively throughout the Old Testament – their story in the Bible was told entirely from the perspective of the Israelites, who had frequent and violent contact with the Moabites. And is often the case in The Bible, “history” is written by the victors. 


Despite these substantial additions, the film does incorporate the core elements that define the biblical story. Following the deaths of Mahlon and his brother, the movie correctly depicts Naomi’s grief and her decision to return to her famine-free homeland of Bethlehem. Most importantly, it preserves the emotional heart of the narrative: Ruth’s unwavering loyalty to her mother-in-law. While the exact wording was adapted, the spirit of Ruth’s famous vow, "Where you go, I will go, and where you stay, I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God," resonates within the film as Ruth leaves behind her Moabite past to accompany Naomi back to her homeland.


Their arrival in Bethlehem contains sequences that adhere more closely to the biblical text. The practice of gleaning, where the poor could gather leftover grain from harvested fields, is accurately portrayed. Ruth's venture into the fields to provide for Naomi and herself leads her – whether by coincidence or divine providence - to the land owned by Boaz, a kinsman of Naomi's late husband. Hollywood’s Boaz embodies the kindness and integrity described in the Bible. The film shows him noticing Ruth, inquiring about her, and ensuring her protection and wellbeing by instructing his workers to treat her well and leave extra grain behind for her and Naomi.


The film also accurately depicts the important Hebrew custom of the kinsman-redeemer. It explains the responsibility of a near relative to safeguard the family's interests, including marrying a childless widow like Ruth to continue the deceased husband's lineage and preserve family property. The narrative includes the necessary step where Boaz must first publicly offer this right and responsibility to a closer relative, who ultimately declines, paving the way for Boaz to fulfill the role. Though in the Bible the closer relative had no name, the movie refers to him as Tob. 


The movie also significantly embellishes the story of how Tob and Boaz negotiated for Ruth’s hand in marriage and the scene between Ruth and Boaz in the grain field that lead up to that negotiation. The film portrays the threshing floor encounter largely as it occurs in the Bible's plot sequence, however, it adjusts the scene to fit the conventions of a 1960s Hollywood biblical romance, emphasizing the personal relationship between Ruth and Boaz more explicitly than the biblical text does, which is more interested in legalistic customs and covenant faithfulness. So, it's accurate in broad strokes but less so in the romantic vs. legal subtleties compared to the biblical passage.


One last observation: The film introduces the character Jehoam, a "holy man," who was not present in the biblical story but was likely added to deliver a prophecy about Ruth's lineage to heighten the film's dramatic and theological significance in ways that couldn’t be done by the main characters themselves. This addition does a wonderful job of adding a “narrator” that explicitly underscores the divine plan and the importance of Ruth's role, reinforcing her connection to King David and the future Messiah. The prophecy creates a sense of foreshadowing, assuring the audience that Ruth's journey is part of a larger, divine plan, and bridges the Old and New Testaments by explicitly linking her lineage to David and Jesus.


In the end, The Story of Ruth culminates, as does the biblical book, in the marriage of Boaz and Ruth. Their union is presented as a resolution built on mutual respect and affection, and the film acknowledges the vital importance of their lineage. However, we must approach the movie understanding that it is very much an interpretation, a Hollywood adaptation that grafts substantial fictional elements onto scripture. To my surprise, I found it be an engaging, semi-fictional story based on scripture, but I could easily feel throughout the film how it stands significantly apart from the simple, powerful elegance of the original Book of Ruth, and it further emphasized to me how it is the simplicity of Ruth’s story that makes it so understandable and compelling to so many.

Related Posts

Comments
Share Your ThoughtsBe the first to write a comment.
bottom of page