Canon, sex and gender in Theodoret of Cyrus’s exposition of LXX Ruth

sexual renunciation were quite popular (i.e. Christian Syria), does with a complicated text like Ruth, which contains so many explicit nuances about sex, procreation and marriage, as well as various gendered complexities. The article starts by examining briefly the canonisation history of Ruth in early Christianity and some of the main interpretative trends in readings of Ruth by other Christian authors. Then, Theodoret’s interpretation of Ruth is examined, focusing specifically on his Questions on Ruth. The purpose of Ruth as scripture, according to Theodoret, is first delineated, after which Theodoret’s approach to sex and gender in LXX Ruth is examined. Contribution: This article argues that Theodoret transforms the story of Ruth into one that aligns with the moral-philosophical discourse related to sex, marriage and gender of his own time. Theodoret restructures Ruth androcentrically by placing Boaz, the masculine and virtuous male father-figure, at the centre of the story, while at the same time stripping Ruth of any possible agency she might have as a would-be temptress.

different canonical grouping for Ruth. The Syriac Old Testament, the Peshitta, includes Ruth in a so-called 'Book of Women', which has Ruth-Susanna-Esther-Judith as its order, located near the end of canon, after Daniel-Bel-the Dragon (Gallagher & Meade 2017:254). It is important to understand that each of these different canonical trends for Ruth may suggest varying presuppositions and conceptions about the meaning of Ruth and its implications for reading and teaching in the early church. 2 The Book of Ruth was subject to numerous interpretations in the early church. 3 The majority of interpretations provide figurative and moral readings of the Ruth narrative. Ambrose of Milan (339-397 CE) provides a great deal of interpretative material on Ruth, even though he did not write an individual commentary on the book. Like many authors, Ambrose begins by explaining and defending the presence of Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus. Not only does Ruth's presence in the genealogy signify Christ's legitimate descendance from David, but Ruth also prefigures the church: Hence, how did she enter the church unless because she was made holy and immaculate by deeds [moribus] that go beyond the law? For if the law was given for the irreverent and sinners, then surely Ruth, who exceeded the limits of the law and entered the church and was made an Israelite and deserved to be counted among the honored figures in the Lord's genealogy, chosen for kinship of mind, not of body, is a great example for us, because she prefigures all of us who were gathered from the nations for the purpose of joining the church of the Lord. We should emulate her ... (Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam 3.30; in ed. Franke 2005:182; Latin text in ed. Tissot 1956:136-138) We see here in Ambrose's reading several aspects that are shared among most early Christian commentators. In the first instance, Ruth functions as a useful exemplum for the contrast between Jewish and gentile identity and for the prominence of gentiles in the early church. In this commentary on Luke, Ambrose associates Jewish identity, overall, with heterodox Christian identity, and gentiles like Ruth are examples of orthodox Christian identity. 4 The 7th-century Christian author Isidore of Seville, who wrote a commentary on Ruth, gives a similar reading of the theological significance of Ruth's ethnic identity. Quoting the most famous verse from Ruth 1:16-17, Isidore (De Ruth 7; in ed. Franke 2005) writes: [F]or the church was called to God from the Gentiles in just this way: leaving her native land (which is idolatry) and giving up all earthly associations, she confessed that he in whom the saints believed is the Lord God. (p. 184) Isidore's general reading of Ruth is figurative: for instance, the two possible suitors for Ruth, Boaz and the other descendant, are read as figures of Christ and John the Baptist, respectively, and the institution of the Levirate marriage, 2.For more on the canonical trends for Ruth, and their possible implications, see Wolfenson (1924:151-178).
3.For a useful collection of primary sources of some early Christian interpretations of Ruth, see Franke (ed. 2005:181-192), on which the synthesis of this section is mainly based. Now, to begin with, you should know that not all inquirers share the same purpose. Some inquire irreverently, believing they find holy Scripture wanting: in some cases, not teaching right doctrine, in others, giving conflicting instructions. In contrast, others, longing to find an answer for their question, search because they love learning. Accordingly, it is my intention to stop the blasphemous mouths of the former, please God, by demonstrating the consistency of holy Scripture and the excellence of its teaching, and also, to the extent possible, provide the latter with solutions to their difficulties. (Quaest. preface, 16-24;in ed. Petruccione & Hill 2007a:5) Theodoret therefore gives us a good idea of his understanding of the genre that is quaestiones. It is not so much to find discrepancies in the text but rather to demonstrate its consistency and the relevance of all scripture. Ruth's canonicity might lie at the heart of who Theodoret's real or imagined opponents might be.
The latter is a difficult point to argue. Just because there are no extant patristic commentaries on Ruth does not necessarily imply that the early Christians had issues about its canonicity. Besides groups like the Marcionites, there is not much evidence in the early Christian canon lists, as seen in Gallagher and Meade (2017), that Ruth was ever excluded from the canon. The question never seemed to have been whether Ruth should be included or not, but rather whether Ruth should be incorporated into Judges or whether it should stand as a book on its own. The absence of patristic commentary on Ruth does not necessarily signify problems about its canonisation, but it might suggest something about the popularity of the book in early Christian discourse and its pedagogical utility. Ruth is a short and, possibly for some, an obscure text from the Old Testament, which only gleans some significance from the mention of Ruth in the genealogy of Jesus. One also wonders whether some readers would have found the sexual contents of the book unsettling. Ruth contains numerous implicit and explicit sexual connotations, along with emphasising the importance of marriage and procreation, all of which were complex matters in early Christian moral discourse.
When Theodoret (and others later like Isidore) wrote a commentary on Ruth, it might not have been to argue for its inclusion in the canon, but for its utility and relevance in Christian pedagogy. This, as we will see, also lies at the heart of Theodoret's exposition of Ruth. The text used by Theodoret for Ruth is the Lucianic (or Antiochene) recension of the Septuagint (LXX). 7 This article will now continue to analyse Theodoret's Quaestiones on Ruth, asking what the specific problems are that Theodoret identifies from Ruth and why, as well as how he accounts for these problems and what the significance of his exposition might be for understanding early Christian culture in Theodoret's context. The study represents an excursus into the reception history of a short yet important book of the LXX in early Christianity. Because of the scarcity of ancient commentaries on Ruth, this study is even more relevant to understand what we might call the early Christian scriptural imaginaire, especially in Christian Syria. Theodoret identifies only two problems in the Book of Ruth that he needs to address. Albeit only two, these are two highly complex and significant questions which, as we have seen, were most likely problems for other authors as well. He firstly asks why the Book of Ruth was composed and added to scripture, and secondly, he accounts for the problem of sex in Ruth. It is this second problem that lies at the very heart of Theodoret's commentary on Ruth, and it serves as an excellent case study in how an early Christian author like Theodoret, operating in a context where asceticism and sexual renunciation are core values, might deal with problematic texts that address sexual matters and contain sexual nuances. She was included exactly because she was a sinner and a Moabite, demonstrating the inclusiveness and universality of God's plan for salvation. Theodoret therefore again departs from readings like those of Ambrose, who links Ruth the gentile with the gentile church, preferring to posit a more universal motif from Ruth's presence in the gospel genealogy. Ruth is not considered to be an exclusive type for the gentile church but rather a symbol of inclusiveness, like Bathsheba, Rahab and Tamar.
Along with its significance for Christ's genealogy, Theodoret also posits, as a second reason, the pedagogical utility of the story of Ruth. Ruth is not simply written because of its genealogical links to David and Jesus: [T]his narrative is sufficient of itself to offer great benefit to those who know how to profit by it. Indeed, it teaches us Naomi's severe misfortunes and commendable patience, the continence [σωφροσύνην] of the young wives, and their affection for their mother-in-law, especially Ruth's, who, moved by a pious heart and the remembrance of her partner, honored even more than her parents an elderly woman, and a pauper at that. The fact that Theodoret highlights the pedagogical value of Ruth is significant. Ruth may have been seen by many commentators as a complicated, albeit eventually useful, text because of its sexual nuances. Commentators and teachers would need to engage in some exegetical 'acrobatics' in order to restructure sex and sexuality in the story of Ruth. As we will see in the next section, Theodoret himself had to do some moral-theological manoeuvring when dealing with Ruth's encounter in Boaz's chamber. The benefits listed by Theodoret are all those values that lie at the centre of early Christian moral philosophy, including patience amid suffering (see Perkins 1995), the importance of continence or self-discipline (σωφροσύνην) (see De Wet 2015) and the care of the poor and elderly (see Brown 2002), as well as the significance of widowhood (see Walter 2018). Theodoret is therefore already recasting the story of Ruth as one that reflects the interests and concerns of early Syrian Christianity. Ruth thus fits in, according to Theodoret, quite well in the early Christian moral-philosophical programme.
Theodoret only resorts to a quasi-figurative reading at the very end of his commentary, as a conclusion to the Quaestiones as a whole, when discussing the birth of Obed, the father of Jesse and grandfather of David, after citing Ruth 4:15 LXX: 'He will be the one to restore your life'. Theodoret explains: [N]ow, in its superficial meaning, this refers to the consolation of that ancient woman, but in its deeper and true meaning, to the conversion of the world, since the salvation of the world was to blossom from that stock. ( Even in this sense, Theodoret is not so much relying on allegory, like Ambrose and Isidore, but more on what is known as theōria, the deeper sense of a scriptural passage (Nassif 1993:437-470).

Restructuring sex in the Book of Ruth
In the first of his quaestiones, Theodoret affirmed that Ruth not only has Christological significance, but it also has great pedagogical utility. The challenge now is to address the obvious concerns some readers may have had with the sexual nature of the material in Ruth. We should remember that Theodoret's world, early Christian Syria, was fundamentally shaped by a rigid and unique manifestation of asceticism, in which some viewed sex and procreation as distractions and even considered marriage a far second to the practice of abstinence and virginity. Theodoret himself, as a child, was dedicated to the monks and had to remain a virgin (Brown 1988:323-337 2007b:369). He recognises that the main problem of the book is its sexual nature. As noted above, Hill surmises that the detractors here might be the Marcionites or even closer contemporaries of Theodoret like Diodore and Theodore. However, the statement is so general in this respect that one cannot comment on possible specific references. What does Theodoret do with Ruth in the context of Christian Syria, then?
Other authors like Ambrose and Isidore read Ruth in a figurative or allegorical sense, which removed the focus from the physical and sexual dimensions of the book. Even Chrysostom, another close contemporary of Theodoret, who shared a similar approach to the interpretation of scripture, resorted to the figurative aspects of Ruth. Theodoret, however, will not take this approach. He recognises the physical and sexual nature of the book and addresses the problem directly.
Theodoret deals with the problem of sex in Ruth by strategically reconstructing and redistributing the characters in the story. This is found specifically in Quaest. Ruth 2.1-2 (eds. Petruccione & Hill 2007b:368-373), from which the following analysis is derived. Theodoret first writes: Naomi suggested that she sleep at the feet of Boaz, but not to sell her beauty, since the words in which she couched her proposal indicate the opposite. As she said, 'You will go and uncover the place at his feet and lie down, and for his part he will tell you what you are to do' [Ruth 3:4 LXX]. This is how confident she was in the man's continence and righteousness. (Quaest. Ruth 2.1. 12-17;Petruccione & Hill 2007b:369) Theodoret thus begins by removing most of Ruth's agency (and, to a lesser extent, Naomi's) as a woman when she approaches Boaz. In early Christian literature we often see the erasure of women's agency by men (see e.g. Clark 1999:233-329). By stripping Ruth of her agency, rendering her a passive female body, Theodoret also removes any possible suspicion that Ruth might have been a sexual temptress. Theodoret's reading, of course, goes against the grain of the original story, as Brenner-Idan (2015:106-23) has demonstrated, who refers to Ruth as a 'positive' temptress. But Theodoret needs to reconstruct Ruth as a passive woman to make her character acceptable to his conservative (and, possibly, male-dominated) audience.
The story is, to an extent, rewritten, and what was a tale about courageous women now becomes a story about a virtuous man, Boaz. He ignores the sexual euphemisms so apparent in Ruth 3:4 and reconstructs Ruth's action not as one of temptation but submission. Boaz's main characteristics are his continence (σωφροσύνη) and righteousness (δικαιοσύνη). The concept of σωφροσύνη was central to early Christian sexual pedagogy, and it was considered the prime virtue that all men and women had to embody. The original sense of the term, related to moderation, had given way to a sense more akin to self-control and discipline, and it was considered a prime virtue of masculinity. So not only is Boaz moved to the centre of the story, but the story becomes one that serves the pedagogy of masculine formation. Like Boaz, young men are not supposed to falter in the face of possible temptation, and women need to submit to their male counterparts. Boaz always had his σωφροσύνη in mind when engaging with Ruth: [W]hen he asked her who she was, and she reminded him of his relationship to the deceased, he commended her actions, but, without forgetting his continence, in observance of the Law, deferred the marital union. (γαμικήν… ὁμιλίαν) (Quaest. Ruth 2.1. 20-23;ed. Petruccione & Hill 2007b:369) In Theodoret's interpretation, there is no distinction between sexual intercourse and marriage (because Boaz is a man of σωφροσύνη, extramarital sex was by no means an option), and when Boaz defers the marriage to Ruth, he also resists any possibility of extramarital sexual intercourse. Theodoret then also strategically paraphrases the text in Ruth 3:10 LXX: The literary strategy of paraphrasing is quite curious in this regard and in early Christian moral-philosophical discourse more generally. We see here that Theodoret quotes the text from the LXX, but through paraphrasing, he essentially creates a new text that is more aligned to his interests and concerns. By focusing on the occurrence of the word 'daughter' (θυγάτηρ), Theodoret transforms the relationship between Ruth and Boaz from a sexual relationship to a parental (and patriarchal) relationship. While the term θυγάτηρ (or ‫י‬ ּ֔ ‫ּתִ‬ ִ ‫)ב‬ does not necessarily imply a parental relationship (Fischer 2001:212-214), it serves in Theodoret to restructure the very nature and dynamics of the relationship between Boaz and Ruth. As a father-figure, Boaz also affirms the character and virtue of Ruth, not as a temptress, but as a woman who is not a slave to desire (οὐκ ἐπιθυμίᾳ δουλεύσασα). Later, Theodoret also states that when Boaz eventually marries Ruth, it was also not because he was enslaved to pleasure (οὐκ ἡδονῇ δουλεύων) (Quaest. Ruth 2.2.57; ed. Petruccione & Hill 2007b:370).
As was common in early Christian moral philosophy, Theodoret reads the story through the lens of the passions or the emotions, carefully analysing and elucidating the possible emotional struggles and decisions of the characters. 8 The emotion of lust (ἐπιθυμία) and the pursuit of pleasure (ἡδονή) are explicitly denounced by the main masculine character of the story, thereby sanitising it of any sexual-emotional misconduct. Rather than it being a story about sex, Theodoret transforms the story of Ruth into one that is about the correct 8.In early Christian studies, there is now a major focus in research on ancient emotions and passions -see, for example, Nussbaum (2013); Reyßer-Aichele (2014); Papadogiannakis (2019); Leyerle (2020).
conduct in pursuit of marriage -sex is restructured in the narrative by placing it within the marital relationship between Ruth and Boaz. Even though virginity was considered to be superior to marriage, any rejection of marriage was considered heretical (Hunter 2007:87-129); Theodoret's reading is therefore on solid footing and would perhaps even appeal to a younger and broader audience who did not want to pursue rigorous ascetic practice: Such was the man's virtue that though a lovely young lady visited him at night, he maintained his continence and conducted the matter according to the Law. He did not even rush into marriage in defiance of the Law, but addressed the closer relative on the topic of the marriage. When the latter declined the marriage, then, and only then, did he unite himself to that excellent woman. Boaz is therefore the ideal masculine character, who holds his σωφροσύνη in high esteem, not being subdued by the passions and rushing into a marriage with a young woman for the sake of sexual gratification. Rather than Ruth, Boaz functions as the main exemplum that should be imitated. Boaz is never seen as a type of Christ, as is the case in some Western expositions. Theodoret further demonstrates Boaz's disregard for sex and marriage by arguing that, when Boaz attempts to conform to the requirements of the Levirate marriage, it is a question of property to him, not sex and marriage per se: 'How admirable his negotiations with that man! He did not begin by raising the question of marriage but first discussed the ownership of property' (Quaest. Ruth 2.2.47-49; ed. Petruccione & Hill 2007b:371). Nowhere does Theodoret reinterpret the Levirate marriage in a figurative sense -he rather renders the custom as an issue of property distribution, an interpretation that holds much merit.

Conclusion
The scarcity of patristic commentaries on Ruth is possibly related not only to its stature as scripture but also to the complexity of the sexual nuances that are so explicit and inherent in the text. Contrary to what Hill has suggested about possible canonical issues related to Ruth, it seems more as if Ruth was a text that was considered difficult for pedagogical purposes. There is no evidence in the canon lists that Ruth's canonicity was ever questioned. Rather, in many early Christian readings of Ruth, there is a common tendency to provide figurative readings of the narrative. Theodoret's interpretation of Ruth in the Quaestiones is therefore unique in that it does not aim to side-step matters of sex, marriage and procreation. After affirming Ruth's purpose and value as a Christological record and a useful pedagogical text, Theodoret sanitises the story of Ruth by strategically reconstructing the characters and transforming Ruth into an androcentric narrative that has Boaz as the true saviour of the (weak and submissive) woman (or women). Ruth's agency is stripped, and the masculine and virtuous male figure that is Boaz becomes the centre of the story and the main object for imitation. In conclusion, Theodoret's commentary on LXX Ruth transforms the narrative into an androcentric account that appears relevant for his own time and audience. The fact that Theodoret does not shy away from the sexual nuances is telling. Rather than avoiding sex, he restructures it through the reconstruction of the characters of the narrative, and he places it safely within the confines of marriage. From canonisation practices in the Syriac tradition, we know that this was probably not the only way a text like Ruth, with its gendered complexities, was handled. Syriac canonical traditions listed Ruth along with other heroic (albeit, in some cases, also passive) female characters like Susanna, Esther and Judith, with interpretations that may have kept Ruth's agency intact.