RUTH, BOOK OF (ר֑וּת, meaning uncertain, possibly companion). In the Heb. Bible Ruth is in the third section, the Hagiographa (or Writings), one of the five Megilloth or scrolls, each of which was associated with one of Israel’s principal feasts. Ruth was read at the Feast of Weeks. In the LXX, Lat. and Eng. VSS, it follows the Book of Judges.
I. Background. The setting of the Book of Ruth, “the loveliest complete work on a small scale” (Goethe), is the period of the Judges, i.e. c. 1200-1020 b.c. In contrast to the international background of the Book of Judges, which traces the moral, religious, and political decline of Israel on a broad scale, Ruth throws light upon a domestic scene where the standards of loyalty and integrity were still high.
II. Authorship. Jewish tradition maintained that Samuel wrote the books of Ruth, Judges, and Samuel. Since the death of Samuel is noted in 1 Samuel 25:1, he could not be the author of 1 and 2 Samuel (originally one book in Heb.). Similarly, since the inference of Ruth 4:17-22 is that David was king, which was not realized in Samuel’s lifetime, it is unlikely that Samuel was the author of Ruth, at least in its present form. The book itself contains no clue concerning its authorship.
III. Purpose. Since an understanding of the purpose is determinative of the date, it must be considered first. There is no other short book in Scripture which has been supplied with so many widely-divergent motives. The chief of these are:
1. A postexilic tract produced to combat the narrow exclusivism said to have been introduced by Ezra and Nehemiah, in particular their legislation on mixed marriages (e.g. Neh 10:30; 13:23-27). But apart from a stress on Ruth’s foreign origin (Ruth 1:22; 2:2, 6, 10, 21; 4:5, 10) such a purpose is far from obvious. The canonicity of the Book of Ruth was dependent, humanly speaking, on Jews who were the spiritual heirs of Ezra. Moreover, in the Talmud the first place in the Writings was given to Ruth, which indicates an absence of tension between the attitude of the book and that of traditional Judaism. The possibility of a literary warfare on ideological issues at this early date is questionable.
2. To show how a Moabitess was included in the ancestry of David. The tracing of Naomi’s line through Obed and Jesse to David (4:17) provides a climax to the story, and the connection with Israel’s greatest king may account in measure for its preservation. But this falls short of providing an adequate motive.
3. A plea for an extension of the practice of levirate marriage, thus averting the tragedy of a family line being extinguished. The purpose then would be one of humanity toward the childless widow.
4. The idyllic nature of the story and the seemingly metaphorical names of its characters, Naomi (“pleasant”), Ruth (“companion”), Mahlon (“sickness”), Chilion (“wasting”), Orpah (possibly “stiff-necked”) has led to it being described as a “Novelle” (Gunkel) or “an interesting tale of long ago” (R. H. Pfeiffer). Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction and the names are good Heb. names. The name “Elimelech” appears in the Amarna tablets of the 14th cent. b.c., but nowhere else in the OT. Forms compounded with “melech” (king) were uncommon in the postexilic period. The narrative itself purports to be historical (1:1), and there is no evidence of anachronisms.
5. Ruth was regarded as the perfect proselyte by the later rabbis. She made a clean break with her own people and was completely loyal to the nation and religion of her adopted family.
6. Perhaps one should not look for a single, all-embracing motive for the book. Surely its preservation is due to the fact that it enshrines so much of what is basic in human relationships and in true Israelite religion. It is a story of a loyal, disinterested relationship, which secured its just reward. The upright, considerate, and industrious Boaz was a model Israelite. It demonstrates an overruling Providence and the all-embracing love of God, illustrating the fact made explicit in Acts 10:34, 35. Its simplicity and domesticity—it is a story of ordinary people—make their appeal to the heart. It speaks a word of hope to the hopeless, the desolate and the bereaved.
IV. Date. It is evident that the Book of Ruth may be dated on a priori grounds, in relation to the ideological views of the preceding section. Here one considers the more objective evidence. The inclusion of Ruth among the Hagiographa, the third section of the Heb. Scriptures, is not necessarily determinative of a late date. It may have been placed there because of its association with the other books of the Megilloth. Certain Aramaisms and late forms have led some scholars to accept a postexilic date, but the issue is contested by others who maintain that “Aramaisms” occur in Heb. from the Mosaic period onward. There is also the possibility of minor modifications of language to make the text intelligible to successive generations. Those who accept a 7th cent. b.c. date for Deuteronomy maintain that the Book of Ruth must predate the law of Deuteronomy 23:3. The dating of the laws in relation to their observance or nonobservance is hazardous. Accepting a Mosaic origin for the Pentateuch, it is evident that many of its provisions were inoperative in the period of the judges. The purity of style and the classical Heb. text argue strongly for a pre-exilic date, but certain features show a gap between the events themselves and the story in its present form. The mention of David in 4:17, the genealogy of 4:18-22, and the explanation of an ancient custom in 4:7 all point to a period after the accession of David. The lack of hostility toward Moab is compatible with the early years of David (1 Sam 22:3, 4; but cf. 2 Sam 8:2, 12) but not with the later period of the monarchy, when Moab frequently fell under the prophetic condemnation (e.g. Isa 15; 16; 25:10; Jer 9:26; 25:21; 27:3; Ezek 25:8-11). No certain date can be given, but a provisional date for the final composition of Ruth during the early monarchy seems not unreasonable.
V. Canonicity. The canonicity of Ruth has never been seriously questioned.
VI. Literary value. Universal assent would be given to the statement that Ruth is a veritable masterpiece of the storyteller’s art. The briefest of introductions sets a scene of hopeless desolation (Ruth 1:1-5). Naomi’s consideration for her daughters-in-law and Ruth’s absolute loyalty, even to the point of accepting a strange and possibly hostile environment, are made clear (1:6-22). An apparently fortuitous encounter with Boaz (2:1-19) leads Naomi to plan for Ruth’s future (2:20-3:5). The story unfolds with a rare delicacy, suspense being maintained until the last—for one breathtaking moment it seems that Boaz was destined not to be Ruth’s husband (4:4). All worked out happily and the line of Elimelech was not extinguished. A simple climax, without any embellishment, came when David was named as a descendant of this union (4:17). Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz, the main characters, are skillfully portrayed and the scene throughout is a simple one, easily comprehended, with two main locations, viz. a roadside in Moab, and Bethlehem during the barley and wheat harvests. The fact that this short story is true makes for an even greater impact.
VII. Contents.
1. A disastrous expedition (1:1-5). An approximate date for these events, working back from the genealogy of 4:17 (which may be selective), is 1100 b.c. A famine in Judah drove Elimelech and his family to Moab as “sojourners,” and as such they had no legal rights there. No direct judgment is given on their departure from their own land (which God had given them) or on the foreign marriages contracted by Mahlon and Chilion, but this may be implicit in the triple disaster which struck the family. Moreover, the lament of 1:21 suggests the loss of considerable material possessions brought from Bethlehem, possibly before the full effect of the famine was felt.
2. Return to Bethlehem-Judah (1:6-22). Clearly there was a deep affection between Naomi and her daughters-in-law. But their future prospects of marriage would be remote if they journeyed, as aliens, to Judah. Nor was there any hope through the custom of levirate marriage (vv. 11-13; cf. Deut 25:5, 6), for Naomi had little chance of bearing further children. Orpah accepted the wisdom of Naomi’s advice and returned. There may be an evidence of territorial henotheism in v. 15, with the gods being limited to the territory of their worshipers, but this is not certain. Ruth’s love and loyalty, however, were such that she was prepared to leave her parents (2:11), her people, and their god. Possibly, as her vow (1:17) indicates, she was a worshiper of Yahweh before this decision was made. Her magnificent utterance (vv. 16, 17) may be compared with the blunter, soldierly protestation of loyalty by Ittai the Gittite, another foreigner (2 Sam 15:21). So Naomi and Ruth traveled the fifty m. to Bethlehem, where the stir among the women folk suggests that the family of Elimelech had enjoyed considerable standing in the community. Now Naomi had been brought low, a fact which she attributed to the Almighty.
3. A chance encounter (2:1-19). The measures which Boaz took for Ruth’s protection (v. 8; cf. 22) show the danger which she, an alien young woman, faced in such a situation. In addition, there was the prospect of hard toil in the heat of the sun for scant reward, in spite of the provisions of Leviticus 19:9, 10 (cf. Deut 24:19-21). Ruth was prepared to accept this, toiling indefatigably (v. 7) to support Naomi in her penury. Boaz, whose introduction as a man of substance (v. 1) gives point to the whole narrative, was aware of the details of the return from Moab (vv. 11, 12), but appears to be moved by nothing more than charitable and humane considerations. So a day of drudgery was transformed into a pleasant and a fruitful experience. Naomi was quick to realize that such a harvest was an indication of extraordinary events (v. 19).
4. The plan of Naomi (2:20-3:18). The reference to the dead (v. 20) shows that a plan was already in process of formulation, although Naomi took time to work out the details. Meanwhile Ruth enjoyed security and relative prosperity among the harvesters of Boaz. There are seasonal variations in Pal., but in general, the barley harvest began in mid-April and the wheat harvest ended in the first weeks of June. The suggested course of action (3:1-5), springing from Naomi’s desire to provide for her daughter-in-law, constituted a direct appeal to Boaz to accept the obligation of the next of kin. It may be assumed that it was the customary course of action in such a situation. Sleeping by the gathered grain (3:7) would be a normal precaution against marauders. Events proceeded with reserve and no hint of any impropriety, and Boaz, who appears as an older man (cf. his address in 2:8, 9), and a bachelor, was obviously delighted at the prospect of marriage to such an attractive person as Ruth. But before the marriage could be realized there was a practical difficulty to overcome: there was a relative who had a prior claim. Two problems in the narrative were easily resolved: (1) Naomi herself had a greater claim than Ruth upon any near kinsman; this she voluntarily relinquished in favor of her daughter-in-law; (2) Naomi must have known that Boaz was not the next of kin, but in all probability he was the one she preferred and so she placed the responsibility for making the necessary arrangements upon him (3:18).
5. Events in the gate (4:1-12). The gate, together with the open space immediately inside the city, was the traditional place of justice, commerce, and everyday encounter. There the elders, whose influence in local matters was paramount, were to be found. There Boaz contrived a meeting between himself, the next of kin, and the requisite number of elders. There would be no lack of witnesses among the bystanders. The procedure followed combined elements from the law of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5, 6) and the law governing redemption of property (Lev 25:25ff.). When a man died, his brother was required to marry his widow, the first son born would then perpetuate the name and the line of the deceased. Boaz and the unnamed next of kin were not, however, the brothers of Mahlon, but as the proceedings were regarded as legal, this incident may be an evidence of a pre-Mosaic custom which extended the scope of levirate marriage to include the nearest relative. As well as having the duty of marrying the widow of the deceased and redeeming the family property, the redeemer-kinsman (גֹּאֵ֨ל) was also “the avenger of blood” (Deut 19:6, 12). Boaz had first to ascertain the willingness, or otherwise, of the next of kin to fulfill his obligations. The initial willingness of the next of kin (Ruth 4:4) was modified when he was informed that a necessary condition was marriage to Ruth, possibly because the redeemed land would be lost to him if a son, reckoned legally as the son of the dead, should be born. Or, perhaps he was already married. The ancient custom of drawing off the shoe (vv. 7, 8) signified an abandonment of the obligation of the next of kin, prob. by the acceptance of the shoe as a token payment from the next in succession. The good wishes of the witnesses reflect the prevalent view that prosperity in marriage was measured in terms of children, who would guarantee the permanence of the family line. An incidental difficulty is that the son born was reckoned to Mahlon (v. 10), Elimelech (v. 17, by implication) and Boaz (v. 21). An answer to this is not immediately apparent, but it prob. lies in the type of levirate marriage contracted, the details of which are lost in the mists of antiquity. The concern of the author is to demonstrate the successful conclusion, and to trace the connection with David.
Bibliography G. A. F. Knight, Ruth and Jonah (1950); H. H. Rowley, “The Marriage of Ruth,” The Servant of the Lord (1952), 161ff.; L. P. Smith, “The Book of Ruth,” IB II (1953); A. E. Cundall and L. Morris, Judges and Ruth (1967); J. G. Baldwin, “Ruth,” NBC (1970).