Alice L. LAFFEY and Mahri LEONARD-FLECKMAN. Ruth Wisdom Commentary, Volume 8, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press (Michael Glazier Book), 2017. Pp 200, $30.96 pb. ISBN 978081461077 (hardcover); ISBN 97808146811329 (ebook). Reviewed by James ZEITZ, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas 48207.

The book of Ruth is ideal for a feminist commentary—since the main characters are women and because of how feminists can relate to the characters. Thus the authors will highlight feminist values in the story, but also “acknowledge patriarchal values.”

The authors start by summarizing how their study of Ruth is a “pleasure” to comment on—since it’s one of three books named after a woman, an “opportunity” (for both the writers and readers to reflect on the character of Ruth—“in her own time and in ours”), and a “challenge: the book has been studied so often the challenge is to collect the best of past scholarship while adding new “voices.”

In the commentary—after the text itself—the authors begin by “retelling the story” for readers unfamiliar with the text, and because tellers include or omit—depending on what they want to emphasize (or de-emphasize). The authors also summarize various types of ‘tellings’ (Jewish, Christian, role in worship and art) and (as in other Wisdom commentaries) types of telling (“Diverse Voices.”)

The following aspects of the authors’ methodology I found especially valuable: First, commentary that enables the reader to relate to the story by filling in the “gaps” or specifics of the narrative. For example, narrative gap filling in (1:6-14): starting with “she” and the important word, return, the narrative fills this in with Naomi and the return to “her husband’s “people.” Bethlehem (1:1-5). This narrative technique “allows the reader to engage in the story and imagine different places and different peoples” (p.22). Commenting on Boaz’s treatment of Ruth (2:4-7: “Boaz came from Bethlehem…”to whom does this young woman belong?”), the authors speculate on the status differential of the two and how Ruth influences Boaz: which “presents us with opportunities for nuancing our understanding of the relationship among class, gender, and power.” Ruth can thus “drive the narrative and influence those with greater privilege (Boaz).” (p.69).

A second valuable aspect of this commentary regards comments on what constitutes a “feminist commentary.” The authors first explain how “each person’s priorities are different as culturally conditioned. Thus Aurekha Nelavala: and her Indian culture…Rajkumar Boaz Johnson’s comments on a different “Ruth” seen from the slums where I was reared.” Next, a person’s priorities can also be women’s and men’s: what men might not notice, what women might find offensive…wrong… or, on the other hand, courageous such as Ruth’s fidelity—seen by men as a model for women but by female author Carolyn James as ‘loving God enough to break the rules’.

Through these comments, the commentary emphasizes Ruth’s “strength” and “intelligence.” Athalya Brenner notes: “Ruth declares herself an intellectual and claims that contemporary feminists are right to connect her with the Torah, traditionally the intellectual domain of Jewish males” (lxxiv).

A final value of this commentary is the use of ‘intertextuality’ to understand Ruth in comparison with other women in the Bible. “Our commentary…draws on other biblical texts to elucidate” (p.13: note). To understand Ruth as a woman in the Bible, there are long comparisons of Ruth with Tamar (p. 142: summary of similarities), Dinah (rape of Dinah), and Lot’s daughters (on continuing the ancestral lineage using deceit).

In summary, this commentary enables the reader to see the three women: Naomi, Ruth, and Orpah, as well as Boaz as people who “make decisions that affect their and others’ futures” (164) and thus identify with them: sharing pain (loss of husbands), “not feeling welcome or not fully belonging,” or being in positions of power (Like Boaz). The “Ruth narrative provides role models of strong character.” The diverse voices include comments on women who retain non-authoritative, pluralistic viewpoints.” (p. xiv). Finally, see Athalya Brenner-Idan’s remark (in the “Foreward”) on situating this ‘feminist’ commentary in relation to other “Master” commentaries: “Becoming the Master is not what this is about.”

The authors’ conclusion: “Other voices” included in the commentary share feminist wisdom which challenges accepted interpretations. Thus “the book can be read as reinforcing the stereotypes of a woman’s happiness (in marriage and motherhood), but it doesn’t have to be: It can also be read as revealing a strong and independent woman who is clearly responsible for her own decisions…” (164)