米樂對《舊約》〈路得記〉做了一個寓言式的閱讀。在米樂強力的閱讀政略下，<路得記>被比喻成一個跨越文化邊界的理論作品，它不但能在新的文化場域裏佔據一片新的領域，還能在新的語言裹為自身取得一方立足之地。米樂認為路得象徵了一個旅行的理論，在跨越了文化界限之後，發揮了新的踐履功能，並在新的文化場域中造成不可預知的意義變化。問題是路得的歸化是一個出於自願的行為，而即使路得終究遭受了以色列父權文化的馴/同化，路得自始至終卻從不在意她摩押文化的獨特性是否可以保留下來。這一點顯然和米樂所宣稱：越界/翻譯後的理論仍舊持有不可化約且根深蒂固的頑強性，這種看法有所矛盾。米樂觀念中那個越界歸化的理論雖然表面上也是出於自願，但它卻積極主動的想在新的文化場域中落地生根以便創生變化。這個積極主動性在一定的程度上反映了一種有意保存理論原生特性（因而也就抗拒全然歸化）的意圖，因此這個意圖所透露的就並非是一種真誠無私的開放—也就是說不是一種放任理論自由活動並願意讓其獨特性自由變化的精神。在這種情形下，越界的理論顯然無法宣稱無邪，因為它已經隱藏了某種入侵的暴力和顛覆的可能。

J. Hillis Miller provides the reader with an allegorical or parabolic reading of Ruth in the Old Testament. Miller contends that Ruth, a Moabitess, can be taken as an “ allegorical figure of traveling theory” that may be translated to a new context and be “appropriated there for new uses,” thereby serving “a new performative function.” Moreover, Miller insists, to one’s surprise, that “literary theory has its own stubborn and recalcitrant particularity,” which in turn “resists full translation and assimilation.” Two points merit our attention here. First, Ruth’s decision to be assimilated/ translated, as exemplified by her oath of allegiance to Naomi, is a voluntary act; and second, throughout the story, Ruth neither anxiously shows any desire for preserving her Moabiteness nor aggressively seeks opportunity to transform the culture of Israel. Ruth is rather a simple, innocent woman who is ignorant of her future. In a symbolic way, Ruth performs a speech act whose result(s) she not only cannot foresee but, more importantly, she has no intention to foresee. It seems, therefore, that Ruth’s innocence and ignorance run counter to Miller’s allegorization of her as an active/aggressive figure of traveling theory that crosses border, occupies territory, and makes a place for itself.