The first few line seem to be offtopic, but don't worry.
"Lost in Non-Translation" (1972)
At the Noreascon (the Twenty-ninth World Science
Fiction Convention), which was held in Boston on the
Labor Day weekend of 1971, I sat on the dais, of
course, since, as the Bob Hope of science fiction, it is
my perennial duty to hand out the Hugos. On my left
was my daughter, Robynsixteen, blond, blue-eyed,
shapely, and beautiful. (No, that last adjective is not a
father's proud partiality. Ask anyone.)
My old friend Clifford D. Simak was guest of honor,
and he began his talk by introducing, with thoroughly
justified pride, his two children, who were in the au-
dience. A look of alarm instantly crossed Robyn's face.
"Daddy," she whispered urgently, knowing full well
my capacity for inflicting embarrassment, "are you
planning to introduce me?"
"Would that bother you, Robyn?" I asked.
"Yes, it would."
"Then I won't," I said, and patted her hand reassur-
ingly.
She thought a while. Then she said, "Of course,
Daddy, if you have the urge to refer, in a casual sort
of way, to your beautiful daughter, that would be all
right."
So you can bet I did fust that, while she allowed her
eyes to drop in a charmingly modest way.
But I couldn't help but think of the blond, blue-eyed
stereotype of Nordic beautv that has filled Western lit-
erature ever since the blond, blue-eyed Germanic
tribes took over the western portions of the Roman
Empire, fifteen centuries ago, and set themselves up
as an aristocracy.
. . , And of the manner in which that stereotype has
been used to subvert one of the clearest and most I'm-
portant lessons in the Biblea subversion that con-
tributes its little bit to the serious crisis that today
faces the world, and the United States in particular.
In line with my penchant for beginning at the be-
ginning, come back with me to the sixth century B.C.
A party of Jews had returned from Babylonian exile to
rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, which Nebuchad-
nezzar had destroyed seventy years before.
During the exile, under the guidance of the prophet
Ezekfel, the Jews had firmly held to their national
identity by modifving, complicating, and idealizing
their worship of Yahweh into a form tliat was directly
ancestral to the Judaism of today. (In fact Ezekiel is
sometimes called "the father of Judaism.")
This meant that when the exiles returned to Jerusa-
lem, they faced a religious problem. There were peo-
ple who, all through the period of the exile, had been
living in what had once been Judah, and who wor-
shiped Yahweh in what they considered the correct,
time-honored ritual. Because their chief city (with Je-
rusalem destroyed) was Samaria, the returning Jews
called them Samaritans.
The Samaritans rejected the newfangled modifica-
tions of the returning Jews, and the Jews abhorred the
old-fashioned beliefs of the Samaritans. Between them
arose an undying hostility, the kind that is exacer-
bated because the differences in belief are compara-
tively small-
In addition there were, also living in the land, those'
who worshiped other gods altogetherAmmonites,
Edomites, Philistines, and so on.
The pressures on the returning band of Jews were
not primarilv military, for the entire area was under
the more or less beneBcent rule of the Persian Em-
pire; they were social pressures, and perhaps even
stronger for that. To maintain a strict ritual in the face
of overwhelming numbers of nonbelievers is difficult,
and the tendency to relax that ritual was almost irre-
sistible. Then, too, young male returnees were at-
tracted to the women at hand and there were inter-
marriages. Naturally, to humor the wife, ritual was
further relaxed.
But then, possibly as late as about 400 B.C., a full
century after the second Temple had been built, Ezra
arrived in Jerusalem. He was a scholar of the Mosaic
law, which had been edited and put into final form in
the course of the exile. He was horrified at the back-
sliding and put through a tub-thumping revival. He
called the people together, led them in chanting the
law and expounding on it, raised their religious fervor,
and called for confession of sins and renewal of faith.
One thing he demanded most rigorously was the
abandonment of all non-Jewish wives and their chil-
dren. Only so could the holiness of strict Judaism be
maintained, in his view. To quote the Bible (and I
will use the recent New English Bible for the pur-
pose ):
"Ezra the priest stood up and said, *You have com-
mitted an offense in marrying foreign wives and have
added to Israel's guilt. Make vour confession now to
the Lord the God of vour fathers and do his will, and
separate yourselves from the foreign population and
from vour foreign wives.' Then all the assembled peo-
ple shouted in reply, 'Yes; wte must do what vou say
. . . (Ezra 10:10-12).
From that time on, the Jews as a whole began to
practice an exclpsivi.sm, a voluntary separation from
others, a multiplication of peculiar customs that fur-
ther emphasized their separateness; and all of this
helped them maintain their identity through all the
miseries and catastrophes that were to come, through
all the crises, and through exiles and persecutions that
fragmented them over the face of the earth.
The exclusivism, to be sure, also served to make
them socially indigestible and imparted to them a
high social visibility that helped give rise to condi-
tions that made exiles and persecutions more iikely.
Not everyone among the Jews adhered to this pol-
icy of exclusivism. There were some who believed
that all men were equal in the sight of God and that
no one should be excluded from the community on
the basis of group identity alone.
One who believed this (but who is forever name-
less) attempted to present this case in the form of a
short piece of historical fiction. In this fourth-century-
B.C. tale the heroine was Ruth, a Moabite woman.
(The tale was presented as having taken place in the
time of the judges, so the traditional view was that it
was written by the prophet Samuel in the eleventh
century B.C. No modem student of the Bible believes
this.)
Why a Moabite women, by the way?
It seems that the Jews, returning from exile, had
traditions concerning their initial arrival at the bor-
ders of Canaan under Moses and then Joshua, nearlv a
thousand vears before. At that time, the small nation
of Moab, which lay east of the lower course of the
Jordan and of the Dead Sea, was understandably
alarmed at the incursion of tough desert raiders and
took steps to oppose them. Not only did they prevent
the Israelites from passing through their territory, but,
tradition had it, they called in a seer, Balaam, and
asked him to use his magical abilities to bring misfor-
tune and destruction upon the invaders.
That failed, and Balaam, on departing, was sup-
posed to have advised the king of Moab to let the
Moabite girls lure the desert raiders into liaisons,
which might subvert their stem dedication to then-
task. The Bible records the following:
"When the Israelites were in Shittim, the people be-
gan to have intercourse with Moabite women, who in-
vited them to the sacrifices offered to their gods; and
they ate the sacrificial food and prostrated themselves
before the gods of Moab. The Israelites joined in the
worship of the Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry
with them" (Numbers 25:1-3).
As a result of this, "Moabite women" became the
quintessence of the type of outside influence that by
sexual attraction tried to subvert pious Jews. Indeed,
Moab and the neighboring kingdom to the north, Am-
mon, were singled out in the Mosaic code:
"No Ammonite or Moabite, even down to the tenth
generation, shall become a member of the assembly of
the Lord . . . because they did not meet you with
food and water on your way out of Egypt, and be-
cause they hired Balaam ... to revile you . . , You
shall never seek their welfare or their good all your
life long" (Deuteronomy 23:3-4, 6).
And yet there were times in later history when
there was friendship between Moab and at least some
men of Israel, possibly because they were brought to-
gether by some common enemy.
For instance, shortly before 1000 B.C., Israel was
ruled by Saul. He had held off the Philistines, con-
quered the Amalekites, and brought Israel to its great-
est pitch of power to that point. Moab naturally
feared his expansionist policies and so befriended any-
one rebelling against Saul. Such a rebel was the Ju-
dean warrior David of Bethlehem. When David was
pressed hard by Saul and bad retired to a fortified
stronghold, he used Moab as a refuge for his family.
"David . . . said to the king of Moab, 'Let my fa-
ther and motlier come and take shelter with you until
I know what God will do for me.' So he left them at
the court of the king of Moab, and they stayed there
as long as David was in his stronghold" (1 Samuel
22:3-4).
As it happened, David eventually won out, became
king first of Judah, then of all Israel, and established
an empire that took in the entire east coast of the
Mediterranean, from Egypt to the Euphrates, with the
Phoenician cities independent but in alliance with
him. Later, Jews always looked back to the time of
David and his son Solomon as a golden age, and Da-
vid's position in Jewish legend and thought was unas-
sailable. David founded a dynasty that ruled over Ju-
dah for four centuries, and the Jews never stopped
believing that some descendant of David would yet
return to rule over them again in some idealized fu-
ture time.
Yet, on the basis of the verses describing David's
use of Moab as a refuge for his family, there may have
arisen a tale to the effect that there was a Moabite
strain in David's ancestry. Apparently, the author of
the Book of Ruth determined to make use of this tale
to point up the doctrine of nonexclusivism by using
the supremely hated Moabite woman as his heroine.
The Book of Ruth tells of a Judean family of Bethle-
hema man, his wife, and two sonswho are driven
by famine to Moab. There the two sons marry Moa-
bite girls, but after a space of time all three men die,
leaving the three womenNaomi, the mother-in-law,
and Ruth and Orpah, the two daughters-in-lawas
survivors.
Those were times when women were chattels, and
unmarried women, without a man to own them and
care for them, could subsist only on charity. (Hence
the frequent biblical injunction to care for widows
and orphans.)
Naomi determined to return to Bethlehem, where
kinsmen might possibly care for her, but urged Ruth
and Orpah to remain in Moab. She does not say, but
we might plausibly suppose she is thinking, that Moa-
bite girls would have a rough time of it in Moab-
hating Judah.
Orpah remains in Moab, but Ruth refuses to leave
Naomi, saying, "Do not urge me to go back and desert
you . . . Where you go, I will go, and where you stay,
I will stay. Your people shall be my people, and your
God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I
will be buried. I swear a solemn oath before the Lord
your God: nothing but death shall divide us" (Ruth
1:16-17).
Once in Bethlehem, the two were faced with the
direst poverty, and Ruth volunteered to support her-
self and her mother-in-law by gleaning in the fields. It
was harvest time, and it was customary to allow any
stalks of grain that fell to the ground in the process of
gathering to remain there to be collected bv the poor.
This t^leanin^ was a kind of welfare program for those
in need. It was, however, backbreaking work, and any
young woman, particularly a Moabite, who engaged
in it underwent certain obvious risks at the hands of
the lusty young reapers. Ruth's offer was simply he-
roic.
As it happened, Ruth gleaned in the lands of a rich
Judean farmer named Boaz, who, coming to oversee
the work, noticed her working tirelessly. He asked
after her, and his reapers answered, "She is a Moabite
girl . . . who has Just come back with Naomi from
the Moabite country" (Ruth 2:6).
Boaz spoke kindly to her and Ruth said, "Why are
you so kind as to take notice of me when I am only a
foreigner?" (Ruth 2:10). Boaz explained that he had
heard how she had forsaken her own land for love of
Naomi and how hard she worked to take care of her-
As it turned out, Boaz was a relative of Naomi's
dead husband, which must be one reason why he was
touched bv Ruth's love and fidelity. Naomi, on hear-
ing the story, had an idea. In those days. if a widow
was left childless, she had the right to expect her dead
husband's brother to marry her and offer her his pro-
tection. If the dead husband had no brother, some
other relative would fulfill the task.
Naomi was past the age of childbearing, so she
could not qualify for marriage, which in those days
centered about children; but what about Ruth? To be
sure, Ruth was a Moabite woman and it might well be
that no Judean would marry her, but Boaz had proven
kind. Naomi therefore instructed Ruth how to ap-
proach Boaz at night and, without crudely seductive
intent, appeal for his protection.
Boaz, touched by Ruth's modesty and helplessness,
promised to do his duty, but pointed out that there
was a kinsman closer than he and that, by right, this
other kinsman had to have his chance first.
The verv next day, Boaz approached the other kins-
man and suggested that he buy some property in
Naomi's charge and, along with it, take over another
responsibility. Boaz said, "On the day when you ac-
quire the field from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the
Moabitess, the dead man's wife . . ."(Ruth 4:5).
Perhaps Boaz carefully stressed the adjectival
phrase "the Moabitess," for the other kinsman drew
back at once. Boaz therefore married Ruth, who in
time bore him a son. The proud and happy Naomi
held the child in her bosom and her women friends
said to her, "The child will give you new life and
cherish you in your old age; for your daughter-in-law
who loves vou, who has proved better to you than
seven sons, has borne him" (Ruth 4:15).
In a society that valued sons infinitely more than
daughters, this verdict of Judean women on Ruth, a
woman of the hated land of Moab, is the author's
moralthat there is nobilitv and virtue in all groups
and that none must be excluded from consideration in
advance simply because of their group identification.
And then, to clinch the argument for any Judean so
nationalistic as to be impervious to mere idealism, the
story concludes: "Her neighbors gave him a name:
'Naomi has a son,' they said; 'we will call him Obed.'
He was the father of Jesse, the father of David" (Ruth
4:17).
Where would Israel have been, then, if there had
been an Ezra present to forbid the marriage of Boaz
with a "foreign wife"?
Where does that leave us? That the Book of Ruth is
a pleasant story, no one will deny. It is almost always
referred to as a "delightful idyll," or words to that ef-
fect. That Ruth is a most successful characterization
of a sweet and virtuous woman is beyond dispute.
In fact everyone is so in love with the storv and
with Ruth that the whole point is lost. It is, by right, a
tale of tolerance for the despised, of love for the
hated, of the reward that comes of brotherhood. By
mixing the genes of mankind, by forming the hybrid,
great men will come.
The Jews included the Book of Ruth in the canon
partly because it is so wonderfully told a tale but
mostly (I suspect) because it gives the lineage of the
great David, a lineage that is not given beyond Da-
vid's father, Jesse, in the soberly historic books of the
Bible that anteceded Ruth. But the Jews remained, by
and large, exclusivistic and did not leam the lesson of
universalism preached by the Book of Ruth.
Nor have people taken its lesson to heart since. Why
should they, since every effort is made to wipe out
that lesson? The story of Ruth has been retold any
number of ways, from children's tales to serious nov-
els. Even movies have been made of it. Ruth herself
must have been pictured in hundreds of illustrations.
And in every illustration I have ever seen, she is pre-
sented as blond, blue-eyed, shapely, and beautiful
the perfect Nordic stereotype I referred to at the be-
ginning of the article.
For goodness' sake, why shouldn't Boaz have fallen
in love with her? What great credit was there in
marrying her? If a girl like that had fallen at your feet
and asked you humbly to do your duty and kindly
marry her, you would probably have done it like a
shot.
Of course she was a Moabite woman, but so what?
What does the word "Moabite" mean to you? Does it
arouse any violent reaction? Are there many Moabites
among vour acquaintances? Have vour children been
cha-sed bv a bunch of lousv Moahites latelv? Have
thev been reducing property values in vour neighbor-
hood? When was the last time vou heard someone sav,
"Got to get those rotten Moabites out of here. They
just fill un the welfare rolls"?
In fact, judging by the way Ruth is drawn, Moa-
bites are English aristocrats and their presence would
raise property values.
The trouble is that the one word that is not trans-
lated in the Book of Ruth is the kev word "Moabite,"
and as long as it is not translated, the point is lost; it is
lost in non-translation.
The word "Moabite" reallv means "someone of a
group that receives from us and deserves from us
nothing but hatred and contempt." How should this
word be translated into a single word that means the
same thing to, sav, many modern Greeks? . . . Why,
Turk." And to manv modem Turks? . . . Why,
"Greek." And to many modern white Americans? . . .
Why, "black."
To get the proper flavor of the Book of Ruth, sup-
pose we think of Ruth not as a Moabite woman but as
a black woman.
Reread the story of Ruth and translate "Moabite" to
"black" every time you see it. Naomi (imagine) is
coming back to the United States with her two black
daughters-in-law. No wonder she urges them not to
come with her. It is a marvel that Ruth so loved her
mother-in-law that she was willing to face a society
that hated her unreasoningly and to take the risk of
gleaning in the face of leering reapers who could not
possibly suppose they need treat her with any consid-
eration whatever.
And when Boaz asked who she was, don't read the
answer as, "She is a Moabite girl," but as, "She is a
black girl." More likely, in fact, the reapers might have
said to Boaz something that was the equivalent of (if
you'll excuse the language), "She is a n***** girl."
Think of it that way and you find the whole point is
found in translation and only in translation. Boaz' ac-
tion in being willing to marry Ruth because she was
virtuous (and not because she was a Nordic beauty)
takes on a kind of nobility. The neighbors' decision
that she was better to Naomi than seven sons becomes
something that could have been forced out of them
only by overwhelming evidence to that effect. And
^. the final stroke that out of this miscegenation was
I-born none other than the great David is rather breath-
taking.