D.J.

Human
Prof. D.J. Human, Re-interpretation
as transformation.
Department of Old Testament
and Hebrew Scriptures, Faculty
of Theology and Religion,
University of Pretoria. E-mail:
[email protected],
Perspectives and
ORCID: https://orcid.
org/0000-0003-0346-4209 challenges for
DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.18820/23099089/actat. Old Testament
Sup32.12
ISSN: 1015-8758 (Print) interpretation 1

ISSN: 2309-9089 (Online)

Acta Theologica 2021

Supp 32:195-219
ABSTRACT
Date received:
30 June 2021 This contribution explains that the re-interpretation of
Date accepted: theological motifs or ideas leads to transforming theology
05 August 2021 and religion. This phenomenon takes place within the
Date published: corpus and boundaries of the Old Testament. Inner-
10 December 2021
biblical debate or “later” texts that re-interpret “earlier”
texts underscore this process and confirm a transformed
theology that is relevant and life-giving for the “new” or
“later” context. Because these processes happened
within the range of a long history of development of Old
Testament literature, the article first discusses important
hermeneutical realities or directives for Old Testament
interpretation. It then mentions a few approaches to, and
challenges of interpreting Old Testament literature. Finally, it
briefly portrays how the book of Ruth re-interpreted certain
pentateuchal texts as an act of transforming theology.

Published by the UFS

http://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/at

© Creative Commons With Attribution 1 I dedicate this article to a colleague and friend in Old
(CC-BY) Testament Studies, Prof. Eben Hans Scheffler, from whom
I have learned so much over many years. My gratitude and
appreciation for his contribution to my experience of theology
and religion.

195
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

1. INTRODUCTION
Transformation2 is a life-giving principle that applies to people, systems
and even written texts. Changing circumstances and new contexts always
require different answers, fresh solutions, and new approaches. Through
the process of transformation, new life energises existing systems, people,
cultures, texts, and contexts. By interpreting and re-interpreting (religious)
texts, transformation processes give birth to a “new” life-giving theology,
which creates hope, encouragement, and revived faith among people of
religious communities.
Transforming theology and religion obviously has many faces. In the
past decade, the debate on transforming theology and religion in South
Africa has indeed intensified.3 To keep theology and religion alive and
relevant in a society or among adherents of different ecclesial groups, their
religious scriptures must be interpreted and re-interpreted within their
respective contexts. For a theology to be relevant in different historical
contexts, various interpretations might prevail, because differences in
time and space mostly cause different interpretations of identical texts.
This is further enhanced by the different needs, “eyes”, and contexts of
interpreters.
Continuous transforming of theologies in the discipline of Old Testament
Studies, among other sub-disciplines, is vital and imperative. This
contribution aims to show that the re-interpretation of theological motifs
or ideas leads to transforming theology and religion. This phenomenon
takes place within the corpus and boundaries of the Old Testament. Inner-
biblical debate or “later” texts that re-interpret “earlier” texts underscore
this process and confirm a transformed theology that is relevant to, and
life-giving for the “new” or “later” context. Because these processes
happened within the range of a long history of development of Old
Testament literature, I will first discuss important hermeneutical realities or
directives for Old Testament interpretation. Secondly, I will mention a few
approaches to, and challenges of interpreting Old Testament literature.
Finally, I will briefly portray how the book of Ruth re-interpreted specific
pentateuchal texts as an act of transforming theology. The core aim of this
contribution is to underscore the imperative need for on-going activities of

2 Since the dawn of democratic South Africa in 1994, the term “transformation” is a buzzword in all
sectors, including the political, social, economic, religious and other spheres of the South African
society. The intention is to create change “for the better”, to improve quality of life and to create a
more equal, equitable and fair society, where all people are treated with dignity and humanness.
3 See aspects of the debate in Deist (1994:33-51), Venter & Tolmie (2012); Snyman (2013:1-5);
Venter (2016); Human (2017:46-47).

196
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

transforming theology and religion in a broken world, religious societies,

and churches.

2. HERMENEUTICAL REALITIES
The Old Testament or Hebrew Bible has captured the imagination of world
literature of all times and has extensively influenced the religion and culture
of the Western world (Deissler 2006:16; Levin 2010:7-8). In the history of
the reception of the Old Testament, this library, or parts thereof, was often
valued or rejected (Hasel 1972:15-34, 145-165; Odendaal 1979:4-5).
Several hermeneutical realities should be considered when interpreting
and understanding the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not a book,
but rather a collection that consists of different genres and literary forms of
communication (Redeformen). It comprises a library consisting of different
kinds of literature in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (LXX). With
poetry and prose as the overarching genre depictions, sub-genres include,
inter alia, narratives, different kinds of poems, songs, genealogies, history-
writing, prophetic oracles, visions, dreams, parables, fables, proverbs,
wisdom sayings, apocalyptic literature, and so on. Knowledge from the
humanities’ disciplines of Languages and Literature makes it clear that
every kind of literature requires its own set of hermeneutical keys and
interpretation rules. In order to understand the different kinds of texts, the
reader should, therefore, use differentiated readings, in order to decode
and understand the different Old Testament genres.
The Old Testament is a literary product of the ancient world(s).4 Behind
this multi-coloured library, not only ancient world views and mythological
allusions are captured,5 but there is also a complex history of growth
behind its origin, development, and different canonical forms (Human
2003:266-272). Texts have grown from an oral phase to a stage of written
documents over very long periods of time through the work of educated
scribes (Schmid 2011:246). Gradually, texts went through different phases
of development by means of Fortschreibung (further editing/writing)
to larger texts and text collections. Ultimately, they formed books and
larger canonical sections.6 Due to these processes, the “central figure”

4 This includes the Egyptian, Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Persian and Hellenistic cultures with their
respective religious, political, social, and economic influence on the Hebrew literature.
5 The influence of the literature of the Ancient Near East (ANE) on Old Testament texts is
innumerous. See the parallels and similarities in the contributions of Gressmann (1926); Pritchard
(1954); Beyerlin (1975); Mathews & Benjamin (1997); Hallo (1997); Hallo & Younger (1997, 2000,
2002); Janowski & Wilhelm (2004); Kaiser et al. (2005); Hays (2014).
6 The Pentateuch (Torah), Genesis to 2 Kings, Prophets, or the Writings.

197
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

behind books and larger units was not a definite single author, but rather
transmitters (Tradenten) of this tradition literature (Traditionsliteratur) over
longer periods of time (Schmid 2011:243).7 Jeremiah8 gives evidence of
growth by means of Fortschreibung. These complex growth processes
comprise activities of Fortschreibung (further writing), interpretation and
reinterpretation of earlier text variants,9 as well as redactional work that
includes later insertions and additions to these variants.10 In the case
of Hosea, it is evident that more than one world or historical context is
captured in the book, including a possible Northern Kingdom-Israel context
(Hos. 1-3), a Judean context (3:5), an exilic context (dtr), and a post-exilic
wisdom saying (14:10). All these contexts are captured or frozen into a so-
called “final” text of the book. This makes the interpretation process of the
text a challenging academic endeavour.
The content of Old Testament books and narratives was written down
in time periods much later than the time in which their described events
took place. Distinction should, therefore, be made between the time of
narration/narrator (when the document was written) and the narrated time
(the time of the described events). The reader must, therefore, be on the
alert to identify and assess indicators of the context of the time of narration.
The book of Daniel, for example, describes events encompassing four
centuries (6th-2nd centuries BCE), probably from a historical context and
crisis situation in the second century BCE (Niehr 2012:615-616). In this
severe crisis, when Israelites were persecuted, the literature was meant
to comfort listeners, in mid-2nd century BCE, with apocalyptic language.
They were comforted with the visions and dreams of Daniel, conveying
a “meaning” that the Israelite God, Yahweh, will protect and care for
his people Israel against the life-endangering activities of Antiochus IV
Epiphanes (Schmitt 2007:460-461; Witte 2012:646).
Due to the scribal processes, namely the growth and development of the
Old Testament, these texts often reflect contradictions, a lack of logic and
unity, as well as some incongruities. Simultaneously, these contradictions
and incongruities challenge the exegete to determine the historical “truth”
and understanding of biblical events. For example, what did Moses do at

7 Many Old Testament books grew over long periods of time, including Deuteronomy, Psalms,
Isaiah and Hosea, among others.
8 Jeremiah 36:32 reads: “So Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to the scribe Baruch son of
Neriah, and as Jeremiah dictated, Baruch wrote on it all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king
of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.” (NIV).
9 See, for example, Psalms 14 and 53; 40 and 70; deuteronomistic history (Deut. – 2 Kgs) and the
chronistic history (1-2 Chr.; Ezr.-Neh.).
10 Several layers in prophetic books, and in the Psalms (130:7; 131:3).

198
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

the Red Sea? Did he hit the water with a rod (Ex. 14:16) and raise his hands
over the water (Ex. 14:22), or did God address the waters (Ps. 106:9)?
Another example: Did Satan or Yahweh urge David to count the people (2
Sam. 24:1; 1 Chr. 21:1), causing the death of thousands of God’s people
(2 Sam. 24:15; 1 Chr. 21:14)? Which history seems to be the “factual” and
correct one: the deuteronomistic history (Deut.-2 Kgs) or the chronistic
history (1 & 2 Chr., Ezr.-Neh.)? There are many other examples to illustrate
this point. If the principle where a text is to be interpreted according to
its historical (Sitz im Leben) and literary contexts (Sitz in der Literatur) is
followed, it is more convincing to assume that Old Testament texts are
neither dogmatic utterances nor history-writing in the modern sense of
its understanding (Becker 2005:1). Incongruities or contradictions often
illustrate a development in the inner-biblical debate on theological issues
or confirm that different contexts provide different, even contradicting,
theological wisdom and insights in the processes of interpretation and
re-interpretation.11

3. APPROACHES TO TEXT INTERPRETATION

3.1 Introduction
To expose and understand Old Testament texts require certain premises
and methodological approaches. Old Testament texts are literary
congealed and “interpreted” historical events, which developed and grew
in different contexts over long periods of time into independent text units
through the processes of theological interpretation and reinterpretation.
Nowadays, in retrospect, the exegete may use a variety of approaches to
expose and understand these texts (Richter 1971; Human 1999:254-369;
Adam et al. 2000; Gorman 2009).
By taking literary, historical, and reader-response theories of
the Humanities into consideration, and how they contribute to the
development of the biblical sciences, methodological approaches to the
processes of exegesis can be summarised as follows (Barton 1984:201).
First, exegetes pose questions about people, circumstances, historical
events, or theological ideas behind the text. This includes questions about
the possible author or transmitters (Tradenten) who wrote, interpreted, or
transmitted a text, as well as questions about the community to whom
the texts were directed or the social and historical circumstances under
which the documents were written. Secondly, questions are asked about

11 Proverbs 26:4-5 provides evidence from the wisdom literature as to how opposite or diverse
interpretations could be made in the same context.

199
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

the text itself: its composition, form, texture, and synchronic nature.
Thirdly, questions also address issues before the text. These questions
pertain to matters regarding the “reader”, including the role, “spectacles”
(read presuppositions and prejudices), and socio-historic context of the
interpreter, who co-determines the “meaning” and outcome of the exegetical
approach. Such exegetical endeavours can broadly be indicated as the
historical-critical approaches, the literary or form-analytical approaches
and the reception-theoretical or reader-response approaches. Although
the meaning and the truth of texts cannot be captured by an exegetical
method(s) (see Gadamer 1960), these methodological approaches serve
as vehicles to illuminate aspects of meaning in a text.

3.2 Historical-critical approaches

Historical-critical exegesis takes the historical context(s) behind the text
as point of departure in the exegetical processes (Barton 1998:9-20). This
method addresses the diachronic aspects, with attempts to determine
a text’s origin, growth, and development (Fortschreibung). Various
historical-critical perspectives such as textual criticism, literary criticism,
transmission history, redaction criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism,
and so on are unearthed in the application of historical criticisms. The
quest for the historical context and date (Sitz im Leben) behind a text is
complemented by the search for its Sitz in der Literatur and Sitz in der
Liturgie (Fohrer 1983:32-150; Becker 2005:14-136; Köhlmoos 2011:38-
45), i.e. the literary context of a text or pericope in the frame of the larger
contexts of a book and its place or function in the ritual or liturgy (for
example, Psalms). Shortcomings of historical criticism such as its silence
on questions about the form and structure, or the literary characteristics of
a given text have stimulated the rise of the literary or structural analytical
approaches.

3.3 Literary and structural approaches

Since the beginning of the 20th century, literary or structural analytical
exegesis started to gain momentum in Old Testament scholarship
(Longman 1999:97-115; Jasper 1998:21-34). As a text-immanent approach,
the “close” or literary reading of a text sought to expose the synchronic
aspects of such texts. The function of structure, style, figures of speech,
and language features all contribute comprehensively to the theological
understanding of a text. Similarly, the rhetorical, narrative, and semiotic
analyses belong to this category. In addition, the canonical approach
includes synchronic components, because the textual shape or body of
texts (canon) is determined by literary criteria and theological reasons from
a specific faith tradition (Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, and so

200
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

on). This specific shape of an authoritative corpus of texts enhances the

meaning or theology of a given text.12
From the above methodological considerations, three basic text-
hermeneutical perspectives determine the way in which Old Testament
literature can be read, namely as historical documents, as aesthetic literary
work, or as the canon of a specific faith tradition (Utzschneider 2006:79).

3.4 Reception-critical approaches

The reception-theoretical or reader-response approaches to text
interpretation analyse the text from the viewpoint of the reader, the interpreter
or the receiver in the communication process. In the hermeneutical
processes of understanding, two different communication processes must
be distinguished when an ancient text is read: the first process happens
between the author and the “original” first audience(s); the second process
appears between the current reader and the text. The pre-knowledge,
presuppositions and prejudices of the reader-interpreter as well as his/her
contextual position (Sitz im Leben) influence the meaning and outcome
of the reading process. The importance of the reader’s context paves the
way for approaches that use the human sciences to determine aspects of
the meaning of a text. This includes sociological, cultural, anthropological,
psychological, and psychoanalytical approaches. In addition, contextual
approaches such as the liberationist, feminist, black or white theologies,
post-colonial, and Africanised readings of the Old Testament belong to
this important angle of incidence (Barton 1998:50-94).
An overview of the South African exegetical landscape from
the beginning of the 20th century until the 1970s shows that the Old
Testament interpretation,13 especially among the White male, mainstream
ecclesiastical groups, was characterised as “confessional and
conservative”, with pre-enlightenment, orthodox, Calvinistic, a-historical,
biblisistic-fundamentalistic, and idealistic-deductive ways of thinking that
also featured in their theologies (Deist 1994:33-51; Groenewald 2004:545-
546). Theology as a critical science was strongly opposed in ecclesiastical
circles during this time period and historical criticism as approach was
viewed negatively. In the thirty years between 1957 and 1987, the South
African Old Testament landscape can also be described as a “story of two
ways”, namely one between synchrony and diachrony (Le Roux 1993).

12 See, for example, the shapes of the Tenach and the Septuagint (LXX) canons, which differ from
each other.
13 See the overview of contributors and approaches in Botha et al. (1994:9-353).

201
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

From the 1970s until the end of the 20th century, stronger emphasis
was placed on synchronic, linguistic, and structural exegesis (Groenewald
2004:547-549). Although different individuals, groups or interpretation
schools have chosen either a synchronic or a diachronic emphasis to
execute their exegetical programmes and hermeneutic activities, the
former (synchronic reading of texts) was still a dominant approach in
Reformed circles.
The past two decades have revealed a stronger balance between
synchronic and diachronic approaches in both Europe and Africa (Barr
1995:11-14; Berges 2000:170; Otto 2005:22-49). The importance of both
historical and literary readings of Old Testament (and biblical) texts
seems to be imperative in approaching Old Testament exegesis with
a comprehensive reading strategy. Depictions such as the “literary-
historical” reading (Human 1999:359) or the “diachronically reflected
synchronic reading” (Groenewald 2004:553), among others, illustrate the
change in approach within the South African context. In the past decade,
academic debate on methods during the ProPent and ProPsalms seminars
(held in Pretoria) demonstrates that this comprehensive reading approach
has definitely been more strongly established and has brought a balance to
the previously dominating synchronic approach, (at least) at the University
of Pretoria (Otto 2005:22-49; Le Roux & Otto 2007).

4. CHALLENGES FOR OLD TESTAMENT

INTERPRETATION
Recent reflections on the history of the literature of the Old Testament
(Literaturgeschichte) made Old Testament scholars aware of the
challenges they are facing in executing their scholarship (Schmid 2008;
2011:244-262). An awareness of these challenges among scholars of other
theological disciplines will built mutual understanding and cohesion in their
distinct endeavours to build the Sache of theology as an interdisciplinary
theological enterprise. Some challenges and problems, which will
succinctly be addressed, amount to the following categories identified and
argued by Schmid (2008; 2011).14

14 In his intention to provide an introduction on the history of Old Testament literature, Schmid (2008;
2011:250-262) identifies and discusses these problems in detail . In this part of my article, I am
indebted to Schmid’s research and I acknowledge it as his work.

202
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

4.1 Scribal activities and schools in Israel

The past decade saw the publication of several books on the scribal
culture in Israel and the origin of the Old Testament (Schniedewind 2004;
Carr 2005; Van der Toorn 2007). Among others, attempts were made
to identify time periods, in which the Old Testament and its literature
originated (Schniedewind: 8th century BCE), and when the largest part of
the texts was produced. The awareness is stressed that Old Testament
books often took five to six hundred years to grow to the “complete” form
they have reached (for example, Isa. and Jer.). The Second-Temple period
seems to be an important, though not the only period of Old Testament
text production.
Carr (2005)15 drew a comparison between ancient cultures and showed
that the scribes received a classical education. In order to control the texts,
the scribes had memorised these texts, which they later cited or alluded to.
The Old Testament is thus the work of educated scribes (Schriftgelehrten),
who had elite status in Israelite society and who were connected to the
temple, and probably also to the royal court (2 Kgs 12:11; 2 Chr. 24:11;
Esth. 3:12; 8:9).
The Amarna correspondence serves as evidence that, already in the
Bronze period (prior to 1100 BCE), writings, scribes and schools were
active in Canaan. Scribes or authors were educated at places (or schools?).
In the Persian period, the education of authors most probably took place
at the Jerusalem Temple (Ben-Zvi 1997:194-209).
It is imperative that Old Testament scholarship continues to investigate
the scribal culture and role of the scribes in the processes of text
production in ancient Israel. This aspect confirms how the production and
transmission of texts were dependent on their memory and interpretation.

4.2 Role of non-canonical, early Israelite and Jewish

literature
As authoritative corpus of texts in Judaism and Christianity, the Old
Testament comprises only part of the kaleidoscope of ancient Israelite and
early Jewish literature. Not all these books and literature were canonised as
Old Testament and Jewish sacred Scriptures. It can, therefore, be assumed
that the Israelite/Jewish canons represent only a narrow perspective in the
broader kaleidoscope of ancient Israelite and Jewish literature.

15 Carr (2005:3-176) portrayed the literature in comparison with literature in ancient Mesopotamia,
Egypt, and Greece, but also with the Hellenistic world and Qumran (Carr 2005:177-276).

203
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

Apart from earlier texts that might have been lost, due to the
deterioration of the material (leather and papyrus) on which they were
written, Old Testament texts also referred to other unknown literature.16
In addition, there were probably pre-exilic written prophetic texts
(Heilsprophetie – salvation prophecies) that must have been preserved
after the fall of Jerusalem.17 Further literature such as Enoch, Jubilees and
others originated in the 3rd century BCE in Hellenistic times, and did not
form part of the Old Testament text corpus.
In general, Old Testament scholarship has the obligation to determine
the relationship between the Old Testament texts and this ancient Israelite/
early Jewish literature. One should similarly examine the broad literary
function and theological position of those literatures in ancient Judaism.
Furthermore, the content and comparison with these texts will definitely
influence the interpretation and re-interpretation of current Old Testament
texts.

4.3 Orality and written texts

Old Testament texts originated and were received in environments
that were characterised by oral communication and activities (Schmid
2011:254-255). Although this was predominantly an illiterate environment,
it was richly filled with poetic and linguistic imagery, motifs, and allusions
inspired by the literary traditions of its Umwelt. The Israelite political,
social, and religious Umwelt was well established long before the birth
and activities of the Israel community and their Yahweh religion.
Until recently, it was assumed in Old Testament scholarship that texts
in their written form originally contained oral traditions that could be traced
back to specific historical contexts. A lament, for example, would have
belonged to a context where someone bewails a painful or distressful
situation. With the help of perspectives from Formgeschichte, the identified
genre of these texts can be interpreted as if it alludes to specific historical
contexts (Sitz/e im Leben). The lament could, therefore, have referred to
the context of a funeral, the threats of an enemy, the illness of a supplicant,
or even the exilic suffering of Israel, but in its written form the lament could
have had a different function, namely to express a victory (Isa. 14) or to
expose characteristics of a hymn (of Zion) (for example, Ps. 137). Context

16 Schmid (2011:254) mentions the Book of the wars of Yahweh (Num. 21:14), the Book of the
Righteous (Jos. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18), the Book of the Song (1 Kgs 8:53 LXX), the Book of the
History of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), the Book of the History of the kings of Israel (1 Kgs 14:19), the
Book of the History of the kings of Judah (1 Kgs 14:29).
17 Similar neo-Assyrian texts were found (Schmid 2008:73-108; 2011:254).

204
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

and function should thus be distinguished in a refined way when texts are
interpreted.
Orality and the written form of texts in ancient times do not always
reflect a direct proportionate relationship. The relationship between the
oral and the written form of texts remains obscure and debatable, while
the borders between form-historical, transmission-historical, and tradition-
historical criticisms are not always clearly demarcated in this regard. Old
Testament scholarship has the obligation to continue contemplating these
relationships in every single text in its interpretation and re-interpretation.

4.4 Periodising Old Testament history of literature

Internal and external principles were used in the past to periodise
ancient Israelite literature in different epochs (Schmid 2011:255). With the
application of the external principle, namely the influence of the hegemonic
world powers of Mesopotamia and Egypt, it has become evident in which
time period there were similar and comparative problems and when these
problems changed. In the early period of Israel’s and Judah’s state formation
(9th and 8th centuries BCE), these world powers culturally and linguistically
influenced and determined them. Two very important theological works,
namely Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writing, probably originated and
were conceptualised in reaction to the influence of these powers during
this period (Schmid 2011:256-7): Deuteronomy as subversive reception of
new Assyrian covenant theology, and the Priestly Writing as a modified
reception of Persian kingdom ideology.
Gunkel earlier distinguished three epochs to categorise ancient
Israelite literature, namely the time of the folk narratives (until ca 750 BCE),
the time of the great authors (ca between 750 and 540 BCE), and the epoch
of the followers or “Epigonen” (Schmid 2011:256) This tripartite division
might theoretically still be relevant, but the development of redaction-
historical processes has brought the insight that it might be necessary
to revise this model. With the fall of the Northern Kingdom in the 8th
century, this epoch remains important in its emphasis on the prophetic
doom traditions as well as the kernel of the Patriarchal, Exodus and David
narratives as foundational narrative of the whole of Israel. The epoch of
the “Epigonen” should currently be revised, since the idea of educated
scribes or (Schriftgelehrten) Tradenten has replaced the notion of so
many identified “authors” and “Epigonen” as “implicit authors”, according
to Gunkel’s model. Current Old Testament scholarship needs to revisit
existing hypotheses.

205
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

4.5 Methodological challenges regarding historical text

arrangement
It is difficult to arrange Old Testament texts historically on a timeline
(Schmid 2011:258). Although this difficulty varies in the three canonical
parts (Torah, Prophets, and Writings), the absolute dating of Old Testament
texts is almost impossible. Texts are, therefore, mostly dated relatively,
because of a lack of internal textual evidence for possible datings. Clues
for dating are often obscured behind narrative language and mythical
portrayals. To date, prophetical texts seem easier, rather than texts from
the Pentateuch and the Writings, because the former often reflect clearer
political and theological indications and clues for possible dating and
arrangement of texts.
Several challenges contribute to the difficult arrangement of Old
Testament literature on a timeline. Historical statements and indications in
narratives frequently illuminate the “narrated world”, rather than the world
of narration of a given book or text. These indications then do not serve
the interest of “factual” historicity and accurate dating. Furthermore, the
nature of poetry and its universal, timeless formulations pose hindrances
to date texts.
Scholars often use the methodological instrument to arrange Old
Testament texts historically, namely the exegetical process, differently
and inconsistently. Methodological aspects for the dating process are
nonetheless inextricably interdependent. The exegete should, therefore,
carefully weigh and assess the application of (especially diachronic)
methodological aspects. Scholars should be aware that, if specific
methodological “steps” enjoy preference above others or are dealt with
more extensively than others, this will influence the historical arrangement
and dating of texts. Dating of Old Testament literature, therefore, remains a
difficult but necessary exegetical endeavour. For interpretation in exegesis
on text comparison, dating (even if it is relative dating) is important.

4.6 Relationship between history of literature and

canon history
A history of Old Testament literature (Literaturgeschichte) aims to seek the
origin, arrangement, and growth of Old Testament texts chronologically
and historically. Canon history, on the other hand, intends to interrogate
how and why the different lists of Old Testament books and different parts
of the “canon” in different faith communities received authoritative status.
These scholarly activities are different, but simultaneously overlap (Schmid
2011:259).

206
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

Both tasks are challenging for the Old Testament scholar. Both
activities rely on the best scholarship, creativity, and skills of specialists
to reconstruct these histories. Standard theories on how the phases of
canonical growth and authority are visualised; when these canonisation
processes were concluded; what the relationships between the tripartite
Law, Prophets and Writings were, and which factors had contributed to
the authorisation of texts, are all challenged in view of new information,
findings, and insights. The fact that there was probably no final form
(Endgestalt) of Old Testament texts, but rather different textual witnesses
such as the Pentateuch makes the task of Old Testament scholarship in
this regard more difficult (Blum 1991:46-57).

4.7 Texts in discussion with each other

If Old Testament texts and canonical parts have grown over long
periods of time through Fortschreibung by educated scribes, then the
Old Testament is not only a text or a library, but also a commentary
(Schmid 2011:258). Inner-biblical debate characterises the relationship
between the three canonical parts and single books mutually. Written
texts of later time periods often react to, and comment on earlier texts
as dense reflected literature. Examples include the discussion between
Isaiah 65 and Ecclesiastes 1,18 the debate between the book of Ruth and
pentateuchal texts on the interpretation of the levirate marriage and the
care of foreigners (Ruth 1-4; Deut. 23-25); the book of Jonah’s debate with
earlier prophetic understandings of God’s rigid judgement and relation to
foreign nations (Jonah; 1 Kgs 21:27-29; Nah.), and the theology of God’s
grace in the book of Jonah in view of the pre-history (Urgeschichte) in
Genesis 1-11 (Hartenstein 2012:435-456).
Texts and books, in which these inner-biblical debates can be
identified, allude mostly to earlier texts, thus transcending their own time
and context (Schmid 2011:258). Because they are reflecting, commenting,
or even rejecting and broadening opposing or one-sided theological
interpretations of laws and ideas of earlier times and distant places, these
debates and interplays are often not distinctly visible or intelligible. In
the search for this intertextual play and tradition-historical relationships
between texts, Old Testament exegetes should constantly be on the alert
to explore mutual traditions and motifs (Traditionsgut) among texts. In
these inner-biblical debates, we find the transformation of earlier ideas
when the authors/scribes/transmitters are transforming past theologies.

18 For more details on the debate between the texts of Isaiah 65 and Qohelet 1, see Schmid
(2011:259) and Krüger (1997:107-129).

207
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

This exegetical activity remains a challenge, because the exegete seeks

inner-biblical historical debates between the lines of synchronic texts.

5. TRANSFORMING THEOLOGIES: RUTH AND

DEUTERONOMY 23-25
5.1 Introduction
As illustration of transforming theologies within the corpus of the Old
Testament, which is explained by the inner-biblical debate, the discussion
between the book of Ruth and the Deuteronomic Law (Deut. 12-26) can
be used as an example. Aspects of the debate show that the act of re-
interpretation constitutes transformation in theology.
The short narrative of Ruth comprises four acts and a genealogy.
In Chapter 1, the family of Elimelek departed from Bethlehem to Moab,
where, after his and his sons’ death, his wife Naomi and Moabite daughter-
in-law Ruth moved back to Bethlehem. In Chapter 2, on a harvest field in
Bethlehem, Ruth went to pick up grain on the field of a close relative of
Elimelek, namely Boaz. In their encounter, Boaz took special care of this
foreign Moabite woman. She gleaned about an ephah of barley. In Chapter
3, there was another encounter between Boaz and Ruth on a threshing floor.
After taking care of her, Boaz promised Ruth to find the close kinsman-
redeemer to take care of her future. He gave her roughly six measures
of barley, double the measure he gave her on the harvest field. Chapter
4 describes a meeting between Boaz, the close kinsman-redeemer, and
witnesses. After negotiations and a transaction, the kinsman refused to
fulfil his levirate duties and Boaz took on this responsibility. Boaz took the
Moabite as his wife, a son Obed was born from this relationship, and Obed
became a forefather of David, whose genealogy is described in Chapter 4
(4:18-22), from Perez to Obed to David.
An inner-biblical debate prevails between the book of Ruth and a part
of certain laws (Deut. 23-25) of the Deuteronomic Law in Deuteronomy
12-26.

5.2 Dating of Ruth and Deuteronomic Law

Although the dating of Old Testament texts is a difficult and contentious
endeavour, it is important to suggest a dating (or relative dating) to
determine in which direction the chronological order of the Deuteronomy
and Ruth texts dates.

208
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

The book of Ruth itself indicates the time of its narration in the Israelite
history during the period of the Judges, circa 1200-1000 BCE (1:1).
Nonetheless, the narrated time of the book causes more challenges. Due
to the book’s possible redaction history and literary (dis)unity, David’s
genealogy could not have been added to the remainder of the text prior
to the post-exilic period. Therefore, different scholars date the book of
Ruth in various epochs, namely in the pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic time
periods of Israelite history (Prinsloo 1982:4-7; De Villiers 2015:43-49). The
most convincing arguments given for its origin is in the Second-Temple
period (Lanoir 2013:588; De Villiers 2015:48-49) in the 5th century BCE
(Zenger 2012:285).19 Witte (2012:592) is even convinced that the Persian
Period origin is likely, due to literary and theological motifs.20
In short, the book shows the theological intention to encourage solidarity
and create hope for the Second-Temple community. The book also tends
to be in discourse with exclusive groups interpreting the Deuteronomistic
Law (Deut. 12-26) rigorously regarding an exclusive Israelite identity. The
book of Ruth thus portrays a unique Israelite identity with inclusive future
identity.
Deuteronomy 23-25 is part of the Deuteronomic Law (Deut. 12-26) that
forms the legislative core of Deuteronomy with apodictic and casuistic
laws (Gertz 2012:312). This Deuteronomic Codex can be divided into
three groups, namely 12:2-16:17, 16:18-18:22, and 19:1-25:16 (Braulik
2012:176), of which the last group reflects the exposition of the 5th to the
10th decalogue commandments.

19 Arguments include the following (Zenger 2012:285; Witte 2012:592; De Villiers 2015:48-49): The
book offers a creative solution for the term “redeem” (4:4) which binds the levirate custom with
the purchase right for clan possessions (Halacha to Lev. 25 and Deut. 25); the redemption of
property is based on Leviticus 25; emphasis on family and clan for the community at large in
time of state collapse; motifs of “return” from foreign land and birth of child for childless widow
reminds of Lamentations and Isaiah 40-60; play with meaning of proper names typical for post-
exilic period; perspectives on women such as foreigner Ruth, Rachel, Leah and Tamar was not
typical for pre-exilic times; many intertextual relations require post-exilic origin; if the book of
Ruth is against rigoristic interpreters who reject foreign women (Ez. 13; Neh. 10) or in polemic
with mixed marriages, the post-exilic context is the most appropriate dating of origin (De Villiers
2015:80-113); archaic language was typical of the Second-Temple period; the book’s position in
the Hebrew canon; books on women (Esther, Judith) typical for Second-Temple period; the book
is aware of most of the texts in the Pentateuch that developed in the exilic and post-exilic times
(De Villiers 2015:50-62).
20 The pro-foreigner motif and similarity with the book of Jonah are arguments for him (Witte
2012:592).

209
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

It is possible to date parts of Deuteronomy in the declining of the

monarchical period. Either the Hezekiahan (723-695 BCE) or/until the
Josianic (622 BCE) reforms (2 Kgs 22-23) might have served as basis for
the Deuteronomic Law (Lohfink 1991:417; Gertz 2012:317-318; Braulik
2012:172-175; Rose 2013:276-279).21 Even the redactional editing or
Fortschreibung activities in the late exilic or early post-exilic periods
could serve as date of origin for the Deuteronomic Law as part of the
deuteronomistic history (DtrG).
From the above depiction, one could conclude that the Deuteronomic
Law can be dated in either the pre-exilic, exilic, or early post-exilic
periods, while the book of Ruth dates in the Second-Temple period in the
5th century BCE or in the Persian Period (538 onwards BCE). In such an
interpretation, the “later” book of Ruth, therefore, engaged into discussion
with the “earlier” deuteronomic laws.

5.3 Aspects of inner-biblical debate

5.3.1Role of Moabites and foreigners
Author(s) of the book of Ruth must have known core parts of the
Pentateuch and the Deuteronomic Law (Deut. 12-26) by the 5th century
BCE in the Second-Temple period. The narrative clearly challenged the
law of Deuteronomy 23:3-4 in a discourse with a re-interpretation of the
position of Moabites as part of Israelite identity.
3
No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter
the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For
they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way
when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor
from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you (Deut.
23:3-4 NIV).

According to the above statute, Moabites should be excluded from

the Israelite nation and identity. The book of Ruth, however, opposed this
notion with a positive approach and interpretation of Moabite inclusion. As
part of a mixed marriage, Ruth is the daughter-in-law of Naomi, an Israelite
(1:8). The redeeming and securing of the Elimelek family name took place
between an Israelite close relative of Elimelek and Ruth, the Moabitess
(4:9-10). Then there was the mixed marriage relationship between the
Israelite and the Moabitess (4:13), from which Obed was born (4:13). This
child from Israelite-Moabite origin became the Moabite ancestor of the

21 Otto (2016:1746) is convinced that Deuteronomy 23:2-9 has a post-exilic dating.

210
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

model Israelite king, David (4:18-22). A foreigner was now part of the
lineage and genealogy of the Israelite nation.
Not only is the Ruth story a positive counter-narrative for Deuteronomy
23:3-4, but it also serves as polemic reaction to rigoristic interpretations
of law texts by Ezra (10) and Nehemiah (13:1-9, 23-31), who prohibited
mixed marriages between Judeans and foreign women in a time close to
the book of Ruth. Ruth offers an interpreting model, which transformed an
earlier interpretation of Deuteronomy 23 into a new life-giving theology for
a new time. This re-interpretation of an “early” statute opened up hope,
solidarity, and an inclusive future in a “post-state” time period for Israelites
(Judeans) under foreign rule (Witte 2012:593).

5.4.Positive role of women

For a predominant patriarchal Israelite society, where women were often
treated as possessions and submissive to men, the book of Ruth provides a
positive portrayal of women. The emphasis on the positive role of a woman
such as Ruth was unforeseeable in pre-exilic times (Zenger 2012:285). Not
only is Ruth portrayed as a positive character in the narrative, but, as a
foreign Moabitess, she also became part of the genealogy of David, the
Israelite nation and its salvation history. She is the only foreign, gentile
woman whose name characterises the name of a book in the Hebrew
Tenach. An important trait is that she showed solidarity or the “covenant
love” (hesed) of Yahweh (1:8; 2:12; 3:10) to others (Naomi).
Furthermore, the book serves as positive counter-narrative for the
negative Moabite narratives and women who featured in Genesis 19:30-39
and Numbers 25:1-4 (Zenger 2012:285), while Ruth positively emphasises
the character of strong women such as Esther, Judith and the wise woman
in Proverbs 31:10-31, who acted independently in Israelite literature
(Witte 2012:593). The book even sketches the positive roles of Jacob’s
wives, Rachel and Leah, who were portrayed negatively in the patriarchal
narratives (Gen. 29-31) and the foreign woman Tamar (Gen. 38), who
slept with her father-in-law, Judah. Comparing these women with Ruth
and wishing Ruth their fertility (4:11-12) gives them all the status of arch-
mothers and founders of the nation (De Villiers 2015:230-233).
In sum, the book of Ruth radiates the positive and stable roles of
women for a nation under foreign rule during the Second-Temple period.
Such women seemed to support their families, society and nation with
solidarity and care. In the book of Ruth, redemption takes place “through
the agency of a foreign women” (Williams & Knowles 2018:141).

211
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

5.5 Special care and protection of foreigners, the

fatherless and widows
Another broadening of perspective by Ruth as re-interpretation is the care
and protection of the marginalised group of foreigners, the fatherless and
widows in the earlier Israelite society. The following statute prevailed for
the Deuteronomic Law:

When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do
19

not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the
widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of
your hands (Deut. 24:19 NIV).

In this instance, one can allege that re-interpretation by the book of

Ruth is even radical transformation. The Deuteronomic Law only expects
Israelites not to pick up a sheaf that fell down. The marginalised who
walked behind the gleaners then pick it up as social help for them as the
poor.
Ruth opened up and broadened this perspective. Boaz acted radically.
He told Ruth to glean with his servants on his field (2:9); he ordered his men
not to abuse her (2:9); he said that she must get water from the water jars
of his servants (2:9); he spoke kindly to her (2:13); he gave her bread and
wine vinegar at mealtimes (2:14); he offered her roasted corn (2:14); she
could even gather among the sheaves, not coming from behind (2:15); he
asked his men to even pull out stalks from their bundles and leave them for
her to pick up (2:16), and Ruth gathered about an ephah of threshed barley
(2:17). In the next act on the threshing-floor, Boaz gave her six measures
of barley, double the amount as earlier (3:17).
It is clear that this “royal” treatment of Ruth as foreign widow widened
the stature of Deuteronomy 24:19. Not only did Boaz provide the required
social care to her, but he specially cared for her and protected her as
foreign woman, as if she was someone from his own household.

5.6 Levirate marriage

Even the interpretation of the levirate or in-law marriage in Deuteronomy
25:5-1022 seems to be broadened in Ruth, probably in view of the

22 5
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry
outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfil the duty of a
brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so
that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. 7 However, if a man does not want to marry his
brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses
to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfil the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then

212
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

redeeming of property rule in Leviticus 25:23-28. Normally, the eldest

brother of a deceased was obliged to marry the widow (Gen. 38) “to assure
a male lineage”, “to preserve the property in the family”, and “to provide
economic security to the widow” (Witte 2012:590). In the case of Ruth, a
close kinsman-redeemer could have fulfilled this levirate and redeeming
responsibility (4:1). But he refused (4:6). Then Boaz, a wealthy family
member of Elimelek, took over this task (4:9). Boaz was not a brother-in-
law of Ruth, but only a close clan member, who then fulfilled the aims of
the levirate.
That a close family member and not a brother-in-law fulfilled this social
obligation had given the social support custom a broader basis (in view of
the later Lev. 25 redeeming law) and secured the family interest. Again, the
book of Ruth had, by re-interpreting this earlier statute, transformed a law
into a life-giving theology.

6. CONCLUSION
This contribution illustrated how the re-interpretation of theological
motifs or ideas leads to the transformation of theology and religion. This
phenomenon appears within the corpus of the Old Testament. Inner-
biblical debate or “later” texts that re-interpret “earlier” texts underscore
this process and confirm a transformed theology that is relevant and life-
giving for the “new” or “later” context. Because these processes happened
within a long history of development of Old Testament literature, the
reader was made aware of important hermeneutical realities or directives
for Old Testament interpretation. A few approaches to, and challenges
of interpreting Old Testament literature were mentioned. Finally, a short
portrayal was given of how the book of Ruth re-interpreted certain
pentateuchal texts as an act of transforming theology. This contribution
intended to underscore the imperative need for on-going activities of
transforming theology and religion in a broken world, in religious societies
and in churches, in order to create life-giving theologies.

the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want
to marry her”, 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one
of his sandals, spit in his face and say “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his
brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled
(Deut. 25:5-10 NIV).

213
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, G., Kaiser, O., Kümmel, W.G. & Merk, O.
2000. Einführung in die exegetische Methoden. Gütersloh: Gütersloher
Verlagshaus.

Barr, J.
1995. The synchronic, the diachronic and the historical: A triangular relationship?
In: J.C. de Moor (ed.), Synchronic or diachronic? Oudtestamentisch
Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie͏̈ (Other); Debate on method in Old
Testament exegesis (Leiden: Brill), pp. 1-14.

Barton, J. (Ed.)
1984. Reading the Old Testament. Method in biblical study. London: Darton,
Longman and Todd.
1998. The historical approaches. In: Barton, J. (ed.), The Cambridge companion
to biblical interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 9-20,
50-94.

Becker, U.
2005. Exegese des Alten Testaments. Ein Methoden- und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen
(UTB): Mohr Siebeck.

Ben Zvi, E.
1997. The urban center of Jerusalem and the development of the Hebrew Bible.
In: W.E., Aufrecht, S.W. Gauley & N.A. Mirau (eds), Urbanism in antiquity. From
Mesopotamia to Crete (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, JSOT SS 244), pp.
194-209.

Berges, U.
2000. Die Zionstheologie des Buches Jesaja. Estudios bíblicos 58(2):67-198.

Beyerlin, W.
1975. Religionsgeschichtliches Textbuch zum Alten Testament. Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

Blum, E.
1991. Gibt es die Endgestalt des Pentateuch? In: J.A. Emmerton (ed.), Congress
Volume Leuven 1989. Vetus Testamentum Supplementum 43 (Leiden: Brill), pp.
46-57.

Botha, P.J., Bosman, H.L., Burden, J.J. & Olivier, J.P.J.

1994. Understanding the Old Testament in South Africa. Old Testament Essays
(Special edition) 7(4):33-51.

Braulik, G.
2012. Das Buch Deuteronomium. In: E. Zenger, C. Frevel, H.-J. Fabry, G.
Braulik & G. Hentschel (Hgrs.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8. Auflage
herausgegeben von Christian Frevel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), pp. 163-188.

214
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

Carr, D
2005. Writing on the tablets of the heart. Origins of scripture and literature. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Deissler, A.
2006. Die Grundbotschaft des Alten Testaments. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder
Verlag.

Deist, F.E.
1994. South African Old Testament studies and the future. Old Testament
Essays 7(4):33-51.

De Villiers, G.G.
2015. Israel se identiteit en die boek Rut. Ongepubliseerde PhD. tesis. Pretoria:
Universiteit van Pretoria.

Foher, G.
1983. Exegese des Alten Testaments. Einführung in die Methodik. 4.
durchgesehene und überarbeitete Auflage. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.

Gadamer, H-G.
1960. Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

Gertz, J.C., Berlejung, A., Schmid, K. & Witte, M. (Eds)

2012. Part III: The literature of the Old Testament: Torah and former prophets. In:
C. Gertz, A. Berlejung, K. Schmid & M. Witte (eds), T. & T. Clark handbook of the
Old Testament. An introduction to the literature, religion and history of the Old
Testament (London: T. & T. Clark), pp. 235-382.

Gorman, M.J.
2009. Elements of biblical exegesis. A basic guide for students and ministers.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Gressmann, H.
1926. Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament. Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter.

Groenewald, A.
2004. Once again methods: Is there a method in the madness? Old Testament
Essays 17(4):544-559.

Hallo, W.W.
1997. Ancient Near Eastern texts and their relevance for biblical exegesis.
In: W.W. Hallo & K.L. Younger (eds), The context of scripture. Canonical
compositions from the biblical world. Volume one (Leiden: Brill), pp. xxiii-xxviii.

Hallo, W.W. & Younger, K.L. (Eds)

2000. The context of scripture. Monumental inscriptions from the biblical world.
Volume two. Leiden: Brill.
2002. The context of Scripture. Archival documents from the biblical world.
Volume three. Leiden: Brill.

215
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

Hartenstein, F.
2012. Die Zumutung des barmherzigen Gottes. Die Theologie des Jonabuches
im Licht der Urgeschichte Gen 1-11. In: A. Berlejung & R. Heckl (Hrsg.), Ex
oriente lux: Studien zur Theologie des Alten Testaments. Festschrift für Rüdiger
Lux zum 65. Geburtstag (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt), pp. 435-456.

Hasel, G.
1972. Old Testament theology: Basic issues in the current debate. Third edition.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans.

Hays, C.
2014. Hidden riches, A sourcebook for the comparative study of the Hebrew
Bible and Ancient Near East. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Human, D.J.
1999. Die literêr-historiese lees van ’n teks. Skrif en Kerk 20(2):354-368. https://
doi.org/10.4102/ve.v20i2.606
2003. Teologiekroniek: Skrifverstaan en die Nuwe Hervorming. Verbum et
Ecclesia 24(1):260-276.

Human, D.J. (Ed.)

2017. Theology at the University of Pretoria – 100 years (1917-2017). Present,
past and future. Verbum et Ecclesia, Supplement 2, 38(4):i-321.

Janowski, B. & Wilhelm, G. (Hg.)

2004. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments (Neue Folge). Bd I-VIII.
Gegründet von Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

Jasper, D.
1998. Literary readings of the Bible. In: J. Barton (ed.), The Cambridge companion
to biblical interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 21-34.

Kaiser, O. et al. (Hg.)

1982. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Bd I-III. Gesamtedition auf
CD Rom in 2005. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

Köhlmoos, M.
2011. Altes Testament. UTB. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.

Krüger, T.
1997. Dekonstruktion und Rekonstruktion prophetischer Eschatologie im
Qohelet-Buch. In: A.A. Diesel ua (Hg.), “Jedes Ding hat seine Zeit” … Studien zur
israelitischen und altorientalischen Weisheit. FS D Michel, (Berlin: De Gruyter,
BZAW 241), pp. 107-129.

Lanoir, C.
2013. Rut. In: T. Römer, J.D. Macchi & C. Nihan (Hg.), Einleitung in das Alte
Testament (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag), pp. 585-591.

216
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

Le Roux, J.H.
1993. A story of two ways. Thirty years of Old Testament scholarship in South
Africa. Lynnwood Ridge: Verba Vitae.

Le Roux, J.H. & Otto, E.

2007. Synchrony, diachrony and the Pentateuch. New York: T. & T. Clark.

Levin, C.
2010. Das Alte Testament. München: CH Beck.

Lohfink, N.
1991. Deuteronomium. In: M. Görg & B. Lang (Hg.), Neues Bibel-Lexikon. Band I
A-G (Zürich: Benziger), pp. 414-418.

Longman III, T.
1999. Literary approaches in Old Testament study. In: D.W. Baker & B.T. Arnold
(eds), The face of Old Testament studies. A survey of contemporary approaches
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), pp. 97-115.

Mathews, V.H. & Benjamin, D.C.

1997. Old Testament parallels. Laws and stories from the ancient Near East.
New York: Paulist Press.

Niehr, H.
2012. Das Buch Daniel. In: E. Zenger, C. Frevel, H.-J. Fabry, G. Braulik & G.
Hentschel (Hgrs.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8. Auflage herausgegeben
von Christian Frevel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), pp. 610-621.

Odendaal, D.H.
1979. Die blywende betekenis van die Ou Testament vir die kerk. In: D.H.
Odendaal, B.A. Müller & H.J.B. Combrink (reds), Die Ou Testament vandag.
Huldigingsbundel opgedra aan prof. P.A. Verhoef (Kaapstad: NG Kerk-
Uitgewers), pp. 3-25.

Otto, E.
2005. The Pentateuch between synchrony and diachrony. Perspectives for the
encounter between Africa and Europe. In: E. Otto & J.H. le Roux (eds), A critical
study of the Pentateuch. An encounter between Europe and Africa. (Münster:
LIT Verlag, ATM 20), pp. 22-49.
2016. Deuteronomium 12-34. Erste Teilband 12,1-23,15. Freiburg im Breisgau:
Herder Verlag.

Prinsloo, W.S.
1982. Die boek Rut. Kaapstad: NG Kerk-Uitgewers.

Pritchard, J.B.
1954. The Ancient Near East in pictures relating to the Old Testament. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.

217
Human Re-interpretation as transformation

Richter, W.
1971. Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft. Entwurf einer alttestamentliche
Literaturtheorie und Methodologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Rose, M.
2013. Deuteronomium. In: T. Römer, J.D. Macchi & C. Nihan (Hg.), Einleitung in
das Alte Testament (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag), pp. 270-285.

Schmid, K.
2008. Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Eine Einführung. Darmstadt:
Wissen, Bildung und Gemeinschaft.
2011. Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments. Aufgaben, Stand, Problemfelder
und Perspektiven. Theologische Literaturzeitung 136(3):244-262.

Schmitt, H.-C.
2007. Arbeitsbuch zum Alten Testament. 2. durchgesehene Auflage. UTB.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Schniedewind, W.M.
2004. How the Bible became a book. The textualisation of ancient Israel.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Snyman, S.D.
2013. Some preliminary thoughts on epistemological transformation and the
study of the Old Testament. Verbum et Ecclesia 34(2), Art #794, 5 pages. http://
dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v3412.794

Utzschneider, H.
2006. Was ist alttestamentliche Literatur? Kanon, Quelle und literarische
Ästhetik als LesArts alttestamentlicher Literatur. In: H. Utzschneider & E. Blum,
Lesarten der Bibel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), pp. 65-84.

Van der Toorn, K.

2007. Scribal culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Venter, R. (Ed.)
2016. Theology and the (post)apartheid condition. Genealogies and future
directions. University of the Free State theological explorations. Volume 1.
Bloemfontein: SUN Press.

Venter, R. & Tolmie, F. (Eds)

2012. Transforming theological knowledge. Essays on theology and the
university after apartheid. Bloemfontein: SUN Press.

Williams, J.F. & Knowles, A.M.

2018. Affirming and contradicting gender stereotypes. Part IV. The writings. In:
G.A. Yee (ed.), The Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), pp. 137-170.

218
Acta Theologica Supplementum 32 2021

Witte, M.
2012. Part V: The literature of the Old Testament: Writings (Ketuvim). In: J.C.
Gertz, A. Berlejung, K. Schmid & M. Witte (eds), T. & T. Clark handbook of the
Old Testament. An introduction to the literature, religion and history of the Old
Testament (London: T. & T. Clark), pp. 312-320, 587-595, 644-656.

Zenger, E.
2012. Das Buch Rut. In: E. Zenger, C. Frevel, H.-J. Fabry, G. Braulik & G.
Hentschel (Hgrs.), Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8. Auflage herausgegeben
von Christian Frevel (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer), pp. 280-289.

Keywords Trefwoorde
Transformation Transformasie
Re-interpretation Herinterpretasie
Book Ruth Boek Rut
Deuteronomy (12-26), 23-25 Deuteronomium (12-26), 23-25

219