RUTH (ר֑וּת; LXX ̔Ρουθ; meaning unknown; a contraction of r’ūt, “fellow-woman,” commonly supposed, is rejected by Noth [Israel. Personennamen, p. 10, citing Noldeke]; no Heb. stem can be convincingly identified). A Moabitess, great grandmother of King David.
Ruth married into a Heb. family which had emigrated from Bethlehem to Moab to escape famine. Elimelech, the father, had died since the move; his sons Mahlon (Ruth’s husband) and Chilion died, childless, within ten years. His widow, Naomi, decided to go home; on the road she advised her daughters-in-law to return to their own families, but Ruth would not be persuaded, and declared her determination to stay by her mother-in-law and trust in the Lord. They reached Bethlehem at harvest time; Ruth went gleaning, as the poor had a right to do. She was led to a field belonging to Boaz, a relative of Elimelech, who made her welcome, having heard of her loyalty to Naomi. After the harvest, Naomi instructed Ruth to approach Boaz to ask formally for his protection, i.e. for him to marry her, on the ground of his relationship to her late husband. Boaz, himself no longer young, was glad to do this. He had first to negotiate with a closer relative; but this man, unwilling to take responsibility for Ruth, relinquished his rights in Elimelech’s property. Boaz married Ruth, and their son Obed was grandfather to David.
The Book of Ruth is one of the five scrolls in the Heb. Scriptures and in Jewish commentaries; the LXX, followed by Vulg. and Eng. VSS., placed it in its historical context after the Book of Judges. There is no certain indication when it was written. Internal evidence (e.g. 4:7) suggests a date long after the events took place. The style is classical, of no special period; spellings characteristic of early poetry are more readily explained as survivals from oral tradition than as deliberate archaisms. Aramaic touches, which may be present, are no guide to date (G. R. Driver, Supplement Vet Test 1 [1951], 26-39). The book shows a strong literary unity; Bertman finds a pattern integrating the genealogy, which many have taken as an appendix.
The legal positions and actions of the parties differ markedly from any covered by Pentateuchal legislation. As none of Naomi’s kinsmen had been living with the deceased, the Deuteronomic law of levirate marriage did not apply (Deut 25:5ff.), neither did Naomi ignore it (1:11, 13). There is no evidence that the story represents earlier law, but the best parallel is in Genesis 38. Ruth’s appeal is ultimately based on custom, not strict obligation. The use of the shoe in contract has no resemblance to its use in Deuteronomy 25.
Bibliography M. Burrows, BASOR 77 (1940), 2-15; JBL 59 (1940), 23-33; J. Slotki, The Five Megilloth (1946); H. H. Rowley, HTR 40 (1947), 77-99; T. Vriezen, Oudtestament Studien 5 (1948), 80-88; E. Robertson, BJRL 32 (1950), 207-228; N. H. Snaith, OT and Modern Study (1952), 201-207; J. Myers, Linguistic and Literary Form of Ruth (1955); S. Glanzman, CBQ 21 (1959), 201-207; W. Rudolph, Das Buch Ruth (1962); S. Bertman, JBL 84 (1965), 165-168; J.-L. Vesco, RB 74 (1967), 235-247; L. Morris, Tyndale OT comms.; Judges, Ruth (1968).