Toto

Beauty and the Enigma (or via: amazon.co.uk) is available on Google books and contains the essay "Ruth and the Romance of Realism, or Deconstructing History" (not all pages can be previewed.) I'm not sure it helps. note 46 at pp 231-2 indicates that spreading a garment to cover one's nakedness might be a metaphor for civilizing influences.

Amaleq13

Please stop repeating this blatant idiocy and stop pretending it is unreasonable to request that you support your assertions with evidence.

I clearly understood the euphemism you asserted without evidence. Your rather emotional and non-substantive response to the entirely reasonable request for support for the assertion suggested you had none. To pretend otherwise is simply and obviously disingenuous.

patcleaver

Thanks for the citation Toto - I will look at it.

patcleaver

Sorry Amaleq13, I will stop picking on you.

When I do not think that someone's factual statement is true then I ask for citations. If they do not have any, then I point out that its just their opinion or that they do not have any evidence and move on.

I'm just frustrated that there are some people on this site (not particularly you) who demand citations as a debating technique, even when they are fairly sure that someone is right. It is often done just to frustrate people and waste their time, and in that case, I don't think its fair or honest.

Amaleq13

As do I and as did I in this instance. I continue to think you are confusing a euphemism for power with a euphemism for physical sex. That a spirit associated with the power of God is explicitly involved certainly suggests the former over the latter. That, to my knowledge, there is no indication anywhere in early Christianity that a physical act of sex was involved does so as well.

It is never a waste of time to provide citations for claims. It improves every discussion here if only by lifting it beyond a mere exchange of opinion with uncertain pedigree. It also provides an avenue for those interested to pursue a topic further.

I don't see how there is any downside to it as opposed to allowing everyone to simply assert whatever they imagine to be true. :huh:

patcleaver

Could you please provide a citation for that - which you can spend a lot of time finding, and I can just ignore when you find it.

Amaleq13

So much for your brief foray into rational discourse.

One shouldn't have to spend any time finding support for an assertion after one makes it but I didn't ignore your belated effort. I just don't find the evidence sufficient to sustain the claim.

patcleaver

" 'Now spread your skirt/wing over your handmaid' is generally considered to be a proposal of marriage;(46) [but] Beattie (1978:42-43, 44) and Nielsen (1985: 206-207) think that it may be a more direct sexual proposition.(47)"
--Francis Landy "Ruth and the Romance of Realism, or Deconstructing History"

The Catholic "perpetual virginity of Mary" crowd think that it is a proposal or consummation of marriage. Joseph could not have sex with Mary because she was married to God.

The Song of Songs is thought by some to be a allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel as husband and wife.[3] It contains lots of metaphors for having sex.

In Ezekiel, God explains how he consummated his marriage with the virgin Israel, and then cleaned her afterwards:

Ezekiel 16:1 ... You grew and developed, you came to the age of puberty; your breasts were formed, your hair had grown, but you were still stark naked. 2 Again I passed by you and saw that you were now old enough for love. So I spread the corner of my cloak over you to cover your nakedness; I swore an oath to you and entered into a covenant with you; you became mine, says the Lord GOD. Then I bathed you with water, washed away your blood, and anointed you with oil. (NAB)

Jeffrey Gibson

What is the actual Greek verb that is used in the Greek text of Ruth when she invites Boaz "to spread" his cloak/garment "over her" after she approaches him in the middle of the night? Is it the same one that Luke uses in his narration of what the angel says is going to happen to Mary? Is the Hebrew word in the Hebrew text of Ruth that is here translated as "spread" the same word that is used in OT texts which speak of God (or anyone) "overshadowing" people or things?



Jeffrey

Flux Æon

I am the first to admit that I am usually in "deep waters" when I come here...in other words, out of my league....BUT....I scanned over most of the posts and I missed one thing...how come no one has mentioned "Immaculate Conception"?
God, ostensibly, impregnated Mary by willing it so. The angel was his messenger
All this arguing over the semantics of "overshadowed" is out of place IMHO.

The angel was a messenger, and the Holy Spirit (God) was the one who impregnated Mary.
That is unless I have my Bibble wrong.
Anything is possible.....but you can't ignore "Immaculate Conception" and the angel being the "messenger" and God being the "Holy Spirit".

Seems like a nobrainer to me...but then, as I said, I'm usually a "brown shoe at a tuxedo party" when I come here.

But I love reading all the debates.