414 



RUTH. 



informs as that Samuel is the responsible author of 

 Ruth, as well as of JadfH. and tin- Ixioks <>(' Samuel. 

 Josrphua not only oouniii the books as "_'. but jie uses 

 the Book of Ruth as a source ol' tin- history, in pre- 

 cLvly the place w here it bluiida in ilie versions, An!. 

 \. ix. 



In opposition to this it is said : " It has been shown 

 in the article on LAMENTATIONS that the argument for 

 the. superior antiquity of this way of reckoning breaks 

 down on closer examination." lint the only proof 

 offered in the article referred to for the purpose of 

 breaking down "this way of reckoning" is the fact 

 that Origen also ascribes "the epistle to Jeremiah. 

 It is alleged that, by this indefinite term " the epi>tlc. 

 Origcn probably meant a certain book that Jeremiah 

 surely did not write, and that Origen s testimony is, 

 therefore, nut to liecroditcd. But as this touches only 

 the testimony of Origen. and not that of the other \vit- 

 nrmrn, and as no one would hesitate to believe Origcn 

 in the main, even it he is incorrect in a specification 

 here and there, the attempt to "break down" the 

 evidence is not a success. It is certain that all ancient 

 tradition concerning the Book of Ruth connects that 

 book with Judgcsand Samuel. 



But several critical reasons are urged against accept- 

 ing this tradition. It is said, lor instance: " While it 

 was very natural that a later rearrangement should 

 transfer Ruth from the Ilagiographa to the historical 

 books, ... no motive can be suggested fur the op 

 posite change." On the contrary, the character of 

 the book, and the use made of it in the reading lessons, 

 might very naturally suggest the placing of it among 

 the Mcgilioth, witli the other short Louks somewhat 

 similar to it in character and use. 



It is further alleged that the Book of Ruth shows 

 no traces of " prophetic" or " Dcutcrotiomistic" edit- 

 ing, and "has no affinity with the point of view which 

 looks on the whole history of Israel as a series of ex- 

 amplesof Divine justice and mercy in the successive 

 rebellions and repentances of the pople of lioil." 

 Hence it is inferred that the book cannot have been 

 known "at the time when the history from Ju< 

 Kings was edited." These assertions need modifying ; 

 but so far as they are true of Ruth they are equally 

 true of each of the five stories (Jud. ziii. 2-xvi. ; 

 xvii.-iviii. ; xix.-xxi.; 1 Sam. i. !-iv. 10; ix. 1- 

 x. Id) that are grouped witli Kuth in this arrangement 

 of the historical books. The reason is evident in re- 

 gard to them all. These stories are a different sort of 

 literature from the narratives of public history with 

 which they are connected. In them the interest lies 

 chiefly, not in the facto of public history which they 

 contain, but in the personal experiences of their he- 

 roes and heroines. J'his accounts for the relative in- 

 frequcney of that class of authors' comments which 

 would refer to the whole nation, rather than to the per- 

 sons whose experiences are being sketched. 



The statement that " the very designation of a pe- 

 riod of Hebrew history as 'the days of the judges' 

 . . . docs not occur till after the exile," and the in- 

 ference from it that Ruth i. 1 is post exilic arc alike 

 incorrect. Neither this phrase nor any phrase fairly 

 equivalent to it occurs in the post-exilic Hebrew of the 

 Bible, save in I C'hron. xvii. 10. where it is in a pas- 

 sage repeated from 1' Samuel. The phrase ocouts sub- 

 stantially in the account given of King Josinh, 2 Ki. 

 xxiii. '2'2. and the same idea is found in ~1 Sam. vii. 1 1, 

 and less sharplv in many places in Judges and Samuel. 

 The idea that by using the phrase the Hook of Kuth 

 "presents itself as dealing with times tar hack " is un- 

 cntica 1 ; the phrase would lie appropriate t tiny time 

 after the monarchy had been a tew years in existence. 

 It is an overstatement to my that tin- hook " takes ob- 

 vious delight in depicting details of antique life and 

 oi M . ' ii- i.-. -." Tiii ie i^ BOtlUBI !" ~h'.'.v th.it tin- 

 writer thought of these details as either antique or ob- 

 solete. From the Biblical accounts it appears that 

 David's conquest* led to a sudden and considerable 



change in the civilization of Israel-^-a change which 

 exhibited it.-elf in architecture, music, literature, and 

 luxury of living, as well as in the revival of p:ophccy 

 and of the ancient Mosai.-m. K~peeially when we have 

 this fact in mind we see that all the 'details of old 

 usages in the Book of Ruth arc such as might natur- 

 ally have IMVII put on record by a writer who lived not 

 later than the la.-t years of David. 



It is said that the author of Kuth views the period 

 in which his story is laid "through the softening at- 

 mosphere of time, which imparts to the scene a gt title 

 sweetness very different from the harsher colors ol the 

 uM narratives of the Book of Judges." But in the 

 nature of things there must have been peaceful, p.is- 

 toral events in the times of the judges, as well as 

 events of war and violence ; and a skilful writer would 

 picture each in the colors that properly belong to it. 

 The circumstances that compelled Elimelech and his 

 sons to live and die in exile have no ''gentle sweet- 

 ness" in them. Whatever difference, then is in this 

 respect between Rutli and the other stories of the 

 times of the judges can be accounted for by the differ- 

 ences in the subject-matter. There is no need to sup- 

 pose a long interval of time between the event and the 

 author in order to account for them. 



In fine all the external evidence goes to show that 

 Ruth belongs to the group of writings, concerning 

 which the Itiilm Jintrii testifies that Samuel the 

 prophet wrote them, but that (Jad and Nathan fin- 

 ished them. To this group belong also the Hooks of 

 Samuel and Judges. These books, taken together, 

 form a quite peculiar historical work, largely made by 

 the process of putting together previously written 

 parts, which is. in literary character, as distinct from 

 tin- Hooks of Kings as it is from the Ilexatcncli. The 

 tradition that Samuel wrote it is certainly capable of 

 being understood in a sense in which it would be evi- 

 dently untrue, but it is also capable of being so under- 

 stood as to be consistent with probability. (See.lt \n.t<. 

 KINGS, and especially S.VMI KI,.) According to this 

 evidence, therefore, Ruth was written within the life- 

 time of these three prophets, probably in the reign of 

 David. 



All the phenomena that appear in the hook arc con- 

 sistent with this view. It would he ditliciilt to estab- 

 lish by instances the statement that the language of the 

 book is "post -classical." And in regard to its con- 

 tents, Kuth. hke Jud. xvii.. xviii., xix.-.xxi.. etc., is a 



story of Bethlehem Kphrata. the hoi f David. It 



alludes to events up to the time when David reigned, 

 and no later. Jt i:< written in the interests of mon- 

 archy, showing that the prc-nionarchieal times were 

 often times of calamity even for good citizens. The 

 - for writing just such a work never would be 

 stronger than they were in David's lifetime. 



Similar considerations show that the Ixiok is to be 

 regarded as historical, and not as a mere romance, 

 however fit a romance like this might be to form a 

 part of the Script u res. .Josephns certainly counted it 

 historical. Ant. V. ix. So does the Hook of I Chron- 

 ieles iii its genealogical lists, and so docs the evangelist 

 Matthew. .Mail, i '>. The historical character of the 

 events also connects itself with the fact ;hat David 

 took his parents to sojourn in Moab. I S;.m. xxii. 3, 

 and with his acknowledgment of obligation to the Am- 

 monite king, 'i Sam. x. '2. 



The idea that the 'genealogical statement with 

 which Kuth closes was borrowed from Chronicles, and 

 added to Kuth by a later hand, is contrary to all the 

 analogies of the relations of Chronicles with the other 

 liooks. and is not sustained by the facts cited to prove 

 it. It is. of course, true that the' author oi Until, iv. 

 ."i. 1". "cleaily iceoL'iii/cs that ()U>d was legally the 

 son of Mahlon," but it does not follow that he was not 

 also the son of Ho.iz. nor that, "from this standpoint 

 the appended genealogy is all wrong." If Boaz had 

 no nearer and preferred heirs of his own blood (and 

 this seems to be the implication of the whole account), 



