all 16 comments

[–]katqanna 68 points69 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While I find the "az" humorous, Ruth didnt wait for the "right" mate, she was a widow. After her husband died, she (still being young) was encouraged to go back to her birth family, yet she chose to follow Naomi to another land. And concerning Boaz, she went to his fields to glean, she went to his threshing floor at night (women were not allowed there), she propositioned Boaz. Ruth was pretty bold considering the heavily patriarchal Indo-European dominance of the territory.

Ruth, btw, is not a Hebraic root word or name. There is a strong chance she came from one of the non-Amorite/Hittite/Hebrew peoples that was matrilineal and not bound by patriarchal restrictions/misogyny. Her actions repeatedly attest to this.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Off topic, but do you have any good suggestions for more reading on topics like this? I am taking a Women in the Ancient World class this summer, and the sources the teacher uses are... questionable, at best (mostly 70s era feminist literature). The teacher wrote her own textbook, so its all pretty much an echo-chamber (we reference her textbook for discussions, she gives us notes, etc). I'd love to find more information.

[–]katqanna 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sadly, there are few decent books out there and often, the ones written by feminists for women's issues are some of the worst. After I wrote my first book, Worthless Deities in the Hebrew Text, dealing with the real origins of much of what is in the Tanak (Hebrew Bible/Old Testament), I came across The Creation of Patriarchy by Gerda Lerner. She is good and accurate with her linguistics.

As a result of that book (WD-when a study exceeds a certain number of pages it becomes a book), which is free and there is a pdf download that is also free (I figured people have been charged so much for the lies and mistranslations that I wanted them to have the truth for free), I found a tremendous amount of archaeology, linguistics and history that deals with the pre-patriarchal Indo-European cultures, that were generally matrilineal. Most of this is not available in single books. I had to do something about it and am almost finished with Historical Baggage: The Book, We Don't Need No Stinkin' Goddesses. I was asked to give a presentation recently and as a result, another, so in a few weeks, I will give the second, explaining the ancient origins and history of women that is excluded, rewritten or assimilated by the patriarchal Indo-Europeans cultures. I am going to work on an online presentation method so that those not in this area can see it, since that was requested also. I am thinking about Prezi.

As another teaching/sharing method, I created a line of textile art bags and jewelry, based on these ancient images. There is some info and examples at the Historical Baggage site. The jewelry is at the etsy shop page. I have about 1/2 a dozen new styles of necklaces with images that I have to shoot and upload. So between the book, the baggage line and presentations, I am trying to get this info out, what our real history is.

Please feel free to read through the intro of the book, the mother culture vs. patriarchal Indo brief and the info on the Worthless Deities book, which also covers some of these issues, especially concerning the bible. If you have any questions, feel free to ask or make comments.

[–]epursimuove 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Hebrews weren't Indo-European.

[–]katqanna 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ah, but they were. Abraham was an Amurru/Amorite and his wife Sarah was a Hittite. Both, are patriarchal Indo-European nations. Hebrew is a later designation for Habiru/Ibriy, which was an Akkadian term for the Amurru nomadic pastoral tribes that took over the territory known as Canaan, eventually spreading their empire as far as Babylon for a time.

Yechezqel [Ezekiel] 16:3, “And say, so says adonay YHWH to Yerushalem, the place of your origin and the place of your birth is of the land of the Kenaaniy [Canaanite]. Your father, the Amoriy [Amarru, Amorite] and your mother, Chiththiyth [female suffix with Hittite, basically Hittitess].” Canaan was originally called the land of the Amurru. The names of Abrahams family line are Amorite names.

Go back and read all the accounts in Bereshiyth/Genesis concerning Abraham and Sarah, notice that journey from Ur to Canaan is the same path as the Amurru empire. Harran was a major Amurru city. There was a confederacy between the Amorites and the Hittites, as evidenced by a treaty between the two nations, about 1230 BCE [The Hittites, J. G. Macqueen, 1986, pg. 40]. These good relations are apparent in the book of Bereshiyth [Genesis] in relation to Abraham, the father of the faith, who is an Amoriy. He marries Sarah, who according to the verse in Yechezqel mentioned above, is a Chiththiy [Hittite]. Abraham entered the land of Kenaan from Harran, and later settled in the territory of the Amurru / Amorites, and made an alliance with Mamre, Aner and Eshkol [Bereshiyth – Genesis 14:13] - Amurru. Chapter 14 Abraham is living near Mamre with the Amurru, whom they had a tribal alliance with. At the point that Sarah dies, they are living in Hittite territory, of which Sarah is. Abraham secures land from the Hittites, who state that Abraham is a mighty prince among them, and according to Amorite/Hittite treaty laws, he was, with a cave for burial. This becomes the family tomb [Ber. 23]. If these Amorites and Hittites were as vile as later biblical editors would have you to believe, then why was the “Father” of this faith “consorting with the enemy” and making covenants with them?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ruth was actually a Moabite, not a Hebrew, although the two cultures were closely related. She married a Hebrew, who later died and she went back as a widow with her mother-in-law to Bethlehem, where she met/married Boaz. So that would explain the name origin.

[–]katqanna 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hebrew/Ibriy is the blanket term for the Amurru, from which the Abrahamic faith derived. The Moabiy/Moabite are an offshoot. Lot was Abrahams nephew. Under genetics and linguistics, Moabiy is Amurru/Hebrew, not to be confused with Israel. As far as linguistics go, Moabite and ancient Israelite are nearly indistinguishable. Some scholars have stated that if it were not for context and some provenence, they would not be able to tell the difference.

[–]SirElkarOwhey 26 points27 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

My addendum would be "But don't sit around doing nothing while you're waiting." Lady ElkarOwhey was out getting her PhD and taking karate classes and playing in a community orchestra and going on dates, not just sitting around waiting for me to show up and give her a life. She built her own life, with room in it for a spouse if she were to meet an acceptable partner. But if we hadn't met, she'd have still had an interesting life and done worthwhile things with it.

[–]themodernvictorian 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is lovely. :)

[–]_lastly_ 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is pretty hilarious!

[–]cupcaketastrophe 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I understood this story to not really be about men, but as a story about women who love each other and remain together by choice. Ruth is widowed and has no obligation to stay with her mother-in-law but she chooses to, because she loves Naomi. Ruth marrying Boaz ensures financial security not only for herself, but for Naomi as well. When Ruth gives birth at the end of the story all the women in town gather around her and Naomi celebrates the birth of her grandson. Ruth doesn't give birth to give Boaz a son, she gives birth for a woman, Naomi. I understood this story not to be about finding your "Prince Charming", but as a love story about two women.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This always makes me laugh. Religious or not.

[–]fuschialady 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

lol i love it

[–]ToenailSauce 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This made me tear up a little!! Good advice!