Ruth

Authorship

The book of Ruth carries many stylistic similarities with the final chapters of the book of Judges (chs.17-21).^[1] Yet, in Ruth, the tables are turned: Instead of a young woman being brutalized by a gang of men, she is cared for and married by Boaz. Furthermore, instead of the nation falling apart because of the lack of a king (Judg. 17:6; 21:25), Ruth shows God’s sovereign plan to bring about the great king David (Ruth 4:17, 22). In our estimation, whoever wrote Ruth seems to be showing a literary and historical connection with Judges.

Ancient Jewish tradition agrees that the same author wrote both Judges and Ruth. The Jewish Talmud records that Samuel—the final judge—wrote both books. The Talmud states, “Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the Book of Judges and Ruth” (Baba Bathra, 14b).

Today, however, “most scholars have abandoned this view,”^[2] because the author of Judges is definitely in favor of the need for a king, while Samuel was definitely against the idea (1 Sam. 8). Furthermore, Samuel died before David (1 Sam. 28:3), and yet, the author mentions David in Ruth (Ruth 4:17, 22). However, the book of Ruth never states that David was the king (Ruth 4:22), so Samuel’s authorship cannot be ruled out. Archer writes, “It would be natural to suppose that either Samuel himself or else some student or disciple of his might have been responsible for the compilation of this history.”^[3] Archer infers some sort of “prophetic” authorship for the book, because “[the author] measures Israel’s history by the standard of faithfulness to Jehovah’s covenant.”^[4] For more on this subject, see “Introduction to Judges.”

Date

We would date the book some time near the monarchy of David (~1,000 BC). Ruth mentions David by name in the final verse of the book (Ruth 4:17, 22), which means the author knew of David. Thus, we would date the book to around this time period. However, critics argue that the book should be late dated:

ARGUMENT #1. Boaz marries a Moabitess, which is precluded by Deuteronomy 23:3. Since critics date Deuteronomy late, they feel it necessary to date Ruth late as well—perhaps just before the time of Josiah’s reform.^[5] Thus, critics date the book to as late as the 6^th century BC. Of course, this late date is largely influenced by the JEDP theory, which we reject (see “Authorship of the Pentateuch”). However, several elements of the book fit quite well with a much earlier dating:

Furthermore, the fact that David’s great-grand mother was a Moabitess is implicit evidence that the story is not fictional—namely, why would a Hebrew storyteller invent such an outrageous concept?^[8] The historical principle of embarrassment would apply to this detail, which is the crescendo of the book.

ARGUMENT #2. The book of Ruth contains many Aramaisms that date to the 6^th century BC. Aramaisms are examples of vocabulary, phrases, or style that come from the Aramaic language. Of course, this language didn’t become popular until the 6^th century BC. From this perspective, if Aramaic wasn’t popular until 600 BC, and there’s examples of Aramaic in Ruth, then this must late date the book to after 600 BC. However, this argument is inconclusive for several reasons:

First, there are only a few Aramaisms in this book. Cundall^[9] lists examples possible of Aramaisms in the book, though he notes, “We must bear in mind that ‘the number of relatively late words is at best very small’.”^[10] Block concurs, “Scholars must strain to find eight late features in a composition of 1,294 words.”^[11]

Second, the Hebrew in Ruth is very ancient. The language of Ruth doesn’t match the Hebrew used in later books like Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, or Chronicles.^[12] Cundall^[13] cites many Hebrew words or expressions that date to an early era—such as the 10^th century BC. Why would a 6^th century author use language from 400 years earlier? This would be like a modern writer using Elizabethan (Shakespearean) English in a historical text. Furthermore, why doesn’t the language fit with later Hebrew books that date to the 6^th century BC?

Third, Aramaisms could be the result of a later Hebrew scribe updating the text. Cundall comments, “An occasional late word may well be evidence of scribal activity rather than of a late date for the book as a whole.”^[14] We might not like that a later scribe updated the original text to his current common language. But this isn’t unlikely.

Fourth, scholars are currently debating whether Aramaic dates earlier than 600 BC. Language doesn’t develop overnight. If Aramaic dates earlier, then perhaps the author could’ve used some loan words from Aramaic.^[15]

Fifth, if this book was written in the post-exilic era, this doesn’t fit with Ezra 9-10. That is, it’s hard to imagine this book being written during the divorces of Ezra 9-10, when it supports a Moabite pursuing an Israelite man for marriage.^[16]

Is Boaz a type of Christ?

Boaz shows many similarities with Jesus. Based on this, many interpreters see him as a “type” or foreshadowing of Christ.

While the parallels are interesting, we feel that we should show hermeneutical restraint on this point. Since the NT authors never make this connection, we are reticent to affirm this view.

Canonicity

Melito (AD 100-180) traveled to Israel to discover what the Jewish people considered to be in their canon. In a letter, he wrote that he wanted to determine “the accurate facts about the ancient writings, how many they are in number, and what is their order.”[18] He found that Ruth had been accepted very early by the Jewish people. Block writes, “The canonical status of the Book of Ruth seems to have been recognized from the beginning.”^[19]

Historicity of Ruth

We cannot conclusively prove every detail in the book of Ruth as historically accurate. However, we can demonstrate that the book generally shows historical reliability and trustworthiness. Consider several reasons:

First, the book claims to be history—not fiction or fantasy. The book doesn’t begin with, “Once upon a time…” Instead, it begins with the words, “In the days when the judges ruled…” (Ruth 1:1). Furthermore, the genre is “best classified as an independent historiographic short story.”^[20]

Second, the book states that the main character, Ruth the Moabitess, is David’s grandmother. This passes the criterion of embarrassment. That is, since the Moabites were disliked by the Jewish people, why would the author invent that David’s grandmother was a Moabitess?

Third, the book accurately depicts many historical details. Block writes, “The picture of the lives of the characters is entirely realistic and in keeping with what is known of life in Palestine in the late second millennium b.c.: the famine and consequent migration of Elimelek and his family (1:1); the allusions to methods of burial (1:17); the geographic portrayal of Bethlehem as a walled town with gates and the location of the threshing floor outside the town; the scenes of workers harvesting the grain (chap. 2); emotions of the characters in the face of grief, anxiety, joy; the nature of the social relationships between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law, landowner and workers, citizen and the citizenry, husband and wife, grandmother and grandson; the legal process (4:1-12). On the last point the narrator is so concerned that his audience understand the historical and cultural context of the story that he adds a parenthetical explanation for their benefit.”^[21] All of this points to accurate historiography.

Fourth, the NT considers Ruth to be historically trustworthy. Indeed, Matthew considers it to be strong history—even using it to demonstrate the genealogy of Jesus Christ (Mt. 1:1-17; cf. 1 Chron. 2:1-17).

Consulted Commentaries

F. B. Huey Jr., “Ruth,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992).

Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968).

Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999).

Key themes in Ruth

(1) God is sovereign over history—even when we cannot see it. During the time of the Judges, it appears that God is relatively inactive. One might wonder what he was doing. Even in Ruth, God remains somewhat hidden. Block refers to “the hidden hand of God”^[22] in Ruth, and he also states, “Yahweh’s name is on the lips of his characters at every turn, but the narrator acknowledges the involvement of God only twice, in 1:6 and 4:13.”^[23]

Yet, much like the biblical figures of Esther and Joseph, Ruth “just so happens” to be at the right place, at the right time (Ruth 2:3). At the end of this book, we discover that their marriage brings about the most important king in Israel’s history: King David. David pulls Israel out of this time of chaos and anarchy. Therefore, even though it doesn’t appear that God is doing a whole lot during this time, we find that his attention to this Moabite woman becomes incredibly important for her well-being and for the nation of Israel. Thus, Block comments, “Despite the relative secularity of the book as a whole, it must be interpreted as a glorious account of divine providence. Underlying every episode is God’s determination to produce David the king from the depressing and chaotic Israelite environment during the days of the judges.”^[24]

(2) God helps and heals the least likely people. Ruth was a Moabitess, who would’ve ordinarily been despised by the people of Israel. But God saw her faith and blessed her despite these cultural barriers. As Leviticus states, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:34).

(3) God uses the least likely people to fulfill his purposes. Without Ruth, we wouldn’t have King David. Without David, the nation of Israel would have stayed in moral anarchy.

^[1] Michael S. Moore, “Ruth,” in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), 293-299.

[2] Merrill, Eugene H., Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 289.

^[3] Archer, G., Jr. (1994). A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (3rd. ed., p. 303). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[4] Archer, G., Jr. (1994). A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (3rd. ed., p. 303). Chicago: Moody Press.

^[5] See Archer for a fuller explanation and refutation of this thesis. Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 307.

^[6] See footnote. Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 308.

^[7] See footnote. Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 308.

^[8] Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 308.

^[9] He writes, “Examples cited are: nāśā nāšîm (1:4), lāhēn (1:13), the verb ‘āgan (1:13), mārā’ for mārâh (1:20), ‘ānâh bĕ (1:21), miqreh (2:3), ta‘ăbûrî (2:8), yiqṣōrûn (2:9), tidbāqîn (2:21), yāradty (3:3), šākābty (3:4), ta‘ăśîn (3:4), margĕlōt (3:7, 8, 14), tēdĕ‘în (3:18), pĕlōnî almōnî (4:1), qayyēm (4:7), šālap na‘ălô (4:7).” Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 221.

^[10] Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 222.

^[11] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 596.

[12] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 303.

^[13] Cundall writes, “He cites as especially noteworthy archaic forms tidbāqîn (2:8, 21), yiqṣōrûn (2:9), yiš’ăbûn (2:9), wĕyāradty (3:3), wĕšākābty (3:4), ta‘ăśîn (3:4), tēdĕ‘în (3:18), qānîtāy (4:5). He also lists śdy (1:1), tē‘ āgēnâh (1:13; Myers sees development from a primitive form), ta‘ăbûrî (2:8), qnyty (4:5; confusion of genders and thus archaic 2f.s.). He cites ’ānōkî as occurring seven times with, ’ănî twice, a mark of early date.” Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 224-225.

^[14] Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 222.

[15] Mark Rooker writes, “Scholars early in the twentieth century tended to view alleged Aramaisms as evidence of late writing. This line of argument has weakened considerably because of the fact that the Aramaic language and influence was operative earlier in the biblical period than was once assumed.” Merrill, Eugene H., Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 300.

^[16] Arthur E. Cundall and Leon Morris, Judges and Ruth: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1968), 226.

^[17] Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 308.

[18] Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 4.26.13.

^[19] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 588.

^[20] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 603.

^[21] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 602-603.

^[22] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 608.

^[23] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 607.

^[24] Daniel Isaac Block, Judges, Ruth, vol. 6, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 610.