Ruth-Esther, Volume 9

By Dr. Frederic W. Bush

The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.

Overview of Commentary Organization

• Introduction—covers issues pertaining to the whole book, including context, date, authorship, composition, interpretive issues, purpose, and theology.
• Each section of the commentary includes:
• Pericope Bibliography—a helpful resource containing the most important works that pertain to each particular pericope.
• Translation—the author’s own translation of the biblical text, reflecting the end result of exegesis and attending to Hebrew and Greek idiomatic usage of words, phrases, and tenses, yet in reasonably good English.
• Notes—the author’s notes to the translation that address any textual variants, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions, basic meanings of words, and problems of translation.
• Form/Structure/Setting—a discussion of redaction, genre, sources, and tradition as they concern the origin of the pericope, its canonical form, and its relation to the biblical and extra-biblical contexts in order to illuminate the structure and character of the pericope. Rhetorical or compositional features important to understanding the passage are also introduced here.
• Comment—verse-by-verse interpretation of the text and dialogue with other interpreters, engaging with current opinion and scholarly research.
• Explanation—brings together all the results of the discussion in previous sections to expose the meaning and intention of the text at several levels: (1) within the context of the book itself; (2) its meaning in the OT or NT; (3) its place in the entire canon; (4) theological relevance to broader OT or NT issues.
  • General Bibliography—occurring at the end of each volume, this extensive bibliographycontains all sources used anywhere in the commentary.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Zondervan
• Release date: Jan 9, 2018
• ISBN: 9780310588283

Dr. Frederic W. Bush

Frederic Bush is the D. Wilson Moore Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary in California. He holds an M.Div. and M.Th. from Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Brandeis University

Book preview

Editorial Board

Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011–)

New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013–)

Past Editors

General Editors

Ralph P. Martin (2012–2013)

Bruce M. Metzger (1997–2007)

David A. Hubbard (1977–1996)

Glenn W. Barker (1977–1984)

Old Testament Editors:

John D. W. Watts (1977–2011)

James W. Watts (1997–2011)

New Testament Editors:

Ralph P. Martin (1977–2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997–2013)

Volumes

*forthcoming as of 2014

**in revision as of 2014

Word Biblical Commentary

Volume 9

Ruth–Esther

Frederic Bush

General Editors: David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker

Old Testament Editor: John D. W. Watts

New Testament Editor: Ralph P. Martin

ZONDERVAN

Ruth-Esther, Volume 9

Copyright © 1996 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Previously published as Ruth, Esther.

Formerly published by Thomas Nelson, now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing.

Requests for information should be addressed to:

Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546

ePub edition January 2018: ISBN 978-0-310-58828-3

The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows:

Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211

Scripture quotations in the body of the text are the author’s own. The author’s own translation of the text appears under the heading Translation.

To My Wife, Bernice

Without whose support, tangible and intangible,

this work would never have seen the light of day

(Ruth 3:11b)

and to David Allan Hubbard

(Who went to be with the Lord the very day this dedication was written)

For his constant encouragement, his insightful critique, and his warm friendship

(Prov 17:17a)

Contents

Editorial Preface

Author’s Preface

Abbreviations

Ruth

Main Bibliography

Introduction

Text and Commentary

Act 1: Prologue and Problem: Death and Emptiness (1:1–22)

Scene 1: Setting and Problem. A Judean Family Dies in Moab: Naomi Is Left without Husband and Sons (1:1–6)

Scene 2: Emptiness Compounded: Naomi and Her Daughters-in-law on the Road to Judah (1:7–19a)

Scene 3: Emptiness Expressed: Naomi Arrives at Bethlehem with Ruth (1:19b–22)

Act 2: Ruth Meets Boaz, Naomi’s Relative, on the Harvest Field (2:1–23)

Scene 1: Ruth Goes to Glean—and Happens upon the Field of Boaz, Naomi’s Relative (2:1–3)

Scene 2: Ruth and Boaz Meet on the Harvest Field: Boaz Is Exceedingly Generous (2:4–17a)

Scene 3: Naomi Evaluates the Meeting: Boaz Is One of Their Redeemers (2:17b–23)

Act 3: Naomi Sends Ruth to Boaz on the Threshing Floor (3:1–18)

Scene 1: Naomi Reveals Her Plan for a Home and Husband for Ruth (3:1–5)

Scene 2: Ruth Carries out Naomi’s Plan, and Boaz Offers to Be the Redeemer (3:6–15)

Excursus: The Relationship between Ruth’s Request and the Question of Levirate Marriage

Scene 3: Naomi Evaluates the Encounter: Boaz Will Act (3:16–18)

Act 4: Resolution and Epilogue: Life and Fullness (4:1–22)

Scene 1: Boaz Acquires the Right to Redeem Naomi and Ruth (4:1–12)

Excursus: The Nature of the Transaction Proposed by Boaz in vv 3–5a

Excursus: Levirate Marriage in the Old Testament

Scene 2: A Son Is Born to Ruth and Boaz: Naomi Is Restored to Life and Fullness (4:13–17)

Scene 3: Epilogue: A Judean Family Restored: The Line of David (4:18–22)

Esther

Main Bibliography

Introduction

Text and Commentary

Act 1: Introduction and Setting: Esther Becomes Queen of Persia (1:1–2:23)

Scene 1: The Deposal of Queen Vashti (1:1–22)

Scene 2: Esther Becomes Queen (2:1–18)

Scene 3: Mordecai Uncovers a Plot (2:19–23)

Act 2: The Crisis: Haman’s Plot to Destroy the Jews (3:1–15)

Scene 1: Haman decides to annihilate the Jews (3:1–6)

Scene 2: Haman sets in motion a plot to annihilate the Jews (3:7–15)

Act 3: Mordecai’s Stratagem: Esther Must Consent to Appeal to the King (4:1–17)

Scene 1: Mordecai and all the Jews lament over Haman’s edict (4:1–3)

Scene 2: At Mordecai’s command Esther consents to appeal to the king (4:4–17)

Act 4: Esther Begins Her Appeal: She Invites the King and Haman to a Banquet (5:1–8)

Scene 1: Esther invites the king and Haman to a banquet (5:1–5a)

Scene 2: Esther again invites the king and Haman to a banquet (5:5b–8)

Act 5: Haman’s Stratagem Backfires: He Is Humiliated and Mordecai Honored (5:9–6:14)

Scene 1: Haman’s hubris: his wife and his friends persuade him to ask the king to hang Mordecai (5:9–14)

Scene 2: Haman’s humiliation: the king commands him to honor Mordecai (6:1–11)

Scene 3: Haman’s end: his wife and his friends predict his downfall (6:12–14)

Act 6: Esther Makes Her Appeal: The Fall of Haman (7:1–10)

Act 7: Esther Appeals Again to the King: She and Mordecai Counter Haman’s Plot (8:1–17)

Scene 1: Esther and Mordecai acquire authority to issue a counterdecree (8:1–8)

Scene 2: Mordecai issues the counterdecree (8:9–17)

Act 8: The Jews Are Victorious: They Put All Their Enemies to the Sword (9:1–5)

Act 9: The Festival of Purim Is Instituted: Mordecai, Esther, and the Jewish Community Set Its Dates and Establish Its Character (9:6–32)

Scene 1: The events that occasion the celebration of Purim over two days (9:6–19)

Scene 2: Mordecai, Esther, and the Jewish community set the dates of Purim and commit themselves to its perpetual celebration (9:20–32)

Epilogue: An Encomium on Mordecai (10:1–3)

Indexes

Editorial Preface

The launching of the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillment an enterprise of several years’ planning. The publishers and the members of the editorial board met in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new commentary on the books of the Bible that would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers of these volumes are entitled to know what such features were intended to be; whether the aims of the commentary have been fully achieved time alone will tell.

First, we have tried to cast a wide net to include as contributors a number of scholars from around the world who not only share our aims, but are in the main engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They represent a rich diversity of denominational allegiance. The broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be understood in its positive, historic sense of a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the truth and power of the Christian gospel.

Then, the commentaries in our series are all commissioned and written for the purpose of inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several of our distinguished counterparts in the field of commentary writing, there are no translated works, originally written in a non-English language. Also, our commentators were asked to prepare their own rendering of the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own comments and exegesis. What may be claimed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological understanding of Scripture understandable by—and useful to—the fledgling student, the working minister, and colleagues in the guild of professional scholars and teachers as well.

Finally, a word must be said about the format of the series. The layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section headed Notes. If the readers’ concern is with the state of modern scholarship on any given portion of Scripture, they should turn to the sections on Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition of the passage’s meaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to meet that need. There is therefore something for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes.

If these aims come anywhere near realization, the intention of the editors will have been met, and the labor of our team of contributors rewarded.

General Editors: David A. Hubbard

Glenn W. Barker†

Old Testament: John D. W. Watts

New Testament: Ralph P. Martin

Author’s Preface

It is impossible to complete the writing of a commentary on a book of the Bible without, on the one hand, being immensely aware of how much one is indebted to the work of those who have gone before and without, on the other hand, feeling a deep sense of gratitude for the insight, understanding, and stimulation that their work has provided. In particular, most valuable has been the work on semantic structure by J. Beekman, J. Callow, and M. Kopesec; that on narrative interpretation by R. Alter, A. Berlin, and M. Sternberg; and above all, for the book of Ruth, the fine commentaries by E. F. Campbell, R. L. Hubbard, P. Joüon, W. Rudolph, and J. M. Sasson; and those of H. Bardtke, D. J. A. Clines, M. V. Fox, and C. A. Moore for Esther. My indebtedness to these and many other scholars in the difficult task of commenting on Ruth and Esther will be evident on almost every page.

In writing this commentary, particularly the Comment sections, I have always had (quite unconsciously at the beginning, I must confess) the needs and interests of the students who have sat for some thirty-one years now in courses on the grammar and exegesis of Hebrew and the other Semitic languages that it has been my privilege to teach at Fuller Theological Seminary. Hence, these sections are far more liberally sprinkled with grammatical explanations and with references to the standard grammatical and exegetical reference works than is normally the case in a work of this kind. I crave the general reader’s indulgence in this regard, an aspect that otherwise would at times, I fear, seem unnecessary, and perhaps even pedantic.

As Rowley observed in 1946, the book of Ruth abounds in problems for which no final solution can ever be found, since the materials for their solution have been denied us (The Servant of the Lord, 171). Nevertheless, I have attempted explanations for several of these intractable problems. In attempting such, I do not presume for a moment to have found the final solutions of which Rowley speaks. I only hope to have thrown some further light on the issues and questions involved. Looking back, I have sometimes wished that I had followed Farrar’s advice of a century ago in regard to the book of Daniel and obeyed the wise exhortation of the Rabbis, ‘Learn to say, I do not know ’  (quoted by Goldingay in his author’s preface to the Word Biblical Commentary on Daniel). The reader should also note that, since the writing of the commentary on the book of Ruth was completed in 1991, it has not been possible to include works that have appeared after that date.

I am indebted to John D. W. Watts, the Old Testament editor of the Word Biblical Commentary, first for the opportunity to contribute this volume to that series, and second for the remarkable forbearance he has shown in patiently awaiting its completion. Particular thanks are due to David A. Hubbard, my former colleague at Fuller Theological Seminary and the general editor of this series, for his continued encouragement and especially for his helpful criticism at each stage of the work. Finally, I am grateful to Fuller Theological Seminary for the sabbaticals that have provided most of the time to write, and in particular to the staff of the Word Processing Department of the School of Theology for their skill in turning my inimitable hieroglyphics into readable text.

FREDERIC WM. BUSH

Fuller Theological Seminary

June 7, 1996

Abbreviations

PERIODICALS, SERIALS, AND REFERENCE WORKS

MODERN TRANSLATIONS

TEXTS, VERSIONS, AND ANCIENT WORKS

BIBLICAL AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS

HEBREW GRAMMAR

MISCELLANEOUS

Ruth

Main Bibliography

Commentaries

(referred to in the text by authors’ names only)

Bertholet, A. Das Buch Ruth. KHAT 17. Tübingen: Mohr, 1898.

Bettan, I. The Five Scrolls: A Commentary on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther. Cincinnati: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1940.

Campbell, E. F. Ruth. AB 7. New York: Doubleday, 1975.

Gerleman, G. Ruth: Das Hohelied. BKAT 18. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1965.

Goslinga, C. J. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Bible Student’s Commentary. Tr. R. Togtman. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986.

Gray, J. Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. CeB London: Nelson, 1967.

———. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NCBC Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.

Gressmann, H. Ruth. SAT 1/2. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1922.

Haller, M. Die Fünf Megilloth. HAT 18. Tübingen: Mohr, 1940.

Hertzberg, H. W. Die Bucher Josua, Richter, Ruth. ATD 9. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.

Hubbard, R. L. The Book of Ruth. NICOT Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.

Joüon, P. Ruth: Commentaire philologique et exégétique. 1924. Repr. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1953.

Keil, C. F. Joshua, Judges, Ruth: Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Tr. J. Martin. Repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

Lattey, C. The Book of Ruth. Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures. London: Longmans, Green, 1935.

Morris, L. Ruth. In A. Cundall and L. Morris. Judges, Ruth. TOTC Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968.

Rudolph, W. Das Buch Ruth, Das Hohe Lied, Die Klagelieder. KAT 17. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1962.

Sasson, J. M. Ruth: A New Translation with a Philological and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation. 2nd ed. Sheffield: JSOT, 1989.

Slotki, J. Ruth. In The Five Megilloth, ed. A. Cohen. Soncino Bible. Hindhead and London: Soncino, 1967.

Trible, P. A Human Comedy. In God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.

Waard, J. de, and Nida, E. A. A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth. Helps for Translators 15. London: United Bible Societies, 1973.

Witzenrath, H. H. Das Buch Rut: Eine literaturwissenschaftliche Untersuchung. Munich: Kosel, 1975.

Würthwein, E. Die Fünf Megilloth. HAT 18. 2nd ed. Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1969.

Zenger, E. Das Buch Ruth. ZBAT 8. Zurich: Theologischer, 1986.

Other Studies

Anderson, A. A The Marriage of Ruth. JSS 23 (1978) 171–83.

Ap-Thomas, D. R. The Book of Ruth. ExpTim 79 (1967–68) 369–73.

Baby, D. The Geography of the Bible. Rev ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.

Beattie, D. R. G. The Book of Ruth as Evidence for Israelite Legal Practice. VT 24 (1974) 251–67.

———. Kethib and Qere in Ruth IV 5. VT 21 (1971) 490–94.

———. A Midrashic Gloss in Ruth 2:7. ZAW 89 (1977) 122–24.

———. Redemption in Ruth and Related Matters: A Response to Jack M. Sasson. JSOT 5 (1978) 65–68.

———. Ruth III. JSOT 5 (1978) 39–48.

Berlin, A. Poetics in the Book of Ruth. In Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. 83–110.

Bernstein, M. J. Two Multivalent Readings in the Ruth Narrative. JSOT 50 (1991) 15–26.

Bertman, S. Symmetrical Design in the Book of Ruth. JBL 84 (1965) 165–68.

Bewer, J. "The Geʾullah in the Book of Ruth." AJSL 19 (1902–3) 143–48.

———. The Goël in Ruth 4:14, 15. AJSL 20 (1903–4) 202–6.

Brenner, A. Naomi and Ruth. VT 23 (1983) 385–97.

Brockelmann, C. Hebräische Syntax. Neukirchen: Moers, 1956.

Burrows, M. The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth. JBL 59 (1940) 445–54.

Bush, E. W. Ruth 4:17, A Semantic Wordplay. In Go to the Land That I Will Show You. FS D. W. Young, ed. J. Coleson and V. Matthews. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. 3–14.

Campbell, E. The Hebrew Short Story: A Study of Ruth. In A Light unto My Path. FS J. M. Myers, ed. H. Bream, R. Heim, and C. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1974. 83–101.

Davies, E. W. Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage: Part 1. VT 31 (1981) 138–44.

———. Inheritance Rights and the Hebrew Levirate Marriage: Part 2. VT 31 (1981) 257–68.

———. "Ruth IV 5 and the Duties of the Goʾel." VT 33 (1983) 231–34.

Dommershausen, W. Leitwortstil in der Ruthrolle. In Theologie im Wandel: Festschrift zum 150 jährigen bestehen der Kathologisch-Theologischen Fakultät Tübingen 1817–1967. Munich-Freiburg: Wewel, 1967. 394–407.

Ehrlich, A. B. Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel: Textkritisches, Sprachliches und Sachliches. VII. 1914. Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968. 19–29.

Eissfeldt, O. Sohnespflichten im Alten Orient. Syria 43 (1966) 39–47.

Fewell, D. N., and Gunn, D. M.  ‘A Son Is Born to Naomi!’: Literary Allusions and Interpretation in the Book of Ruth. JSOT 40 (1989) 99–108.

Glanzmann, G. The Origin and Date of the Book of Ruth. CBQ 21 (1959) 201–7.

Gordis, R. Love, Marriage, and Business in the Book of Ruth: A Chapter in Hebrew Customary Law. In A Light unto My Path. FS J. M. Myers, ed. H. Bream, R. Heim, and C. Moore. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1974. 241–64.

Gow, M. Literary Structure in Ruth. BT 35 (1980) 309–20.

———. Ruth Quoque—A Coquette? (Ruth IV 5). BT 41 (1990) 302–11.

Green, B. A Study of Field and Seed Symbolism in the Biblical Story of Ruth. Diss., Graduate Theological Union, 1980.

Gruber, M. Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980.

Gunkel, H. Ruth. In Reden und Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913.69–92.

Hals, R. The Theology of the Book of Ruth. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.

Hubbard, R. L. Ruth IV 17: A New Solution. VT 38 (1988) 293–301.

Humbert, P. Art et leçon de l’histoire de Ruth. In Opuscules d’un Hebräisant. Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1968. 83–110 (= RTP 26 [1938] 257–86).

Hunter, A. How Many Gods Had Ruth? SJT 34 (1981) 427–35.

Hurvitz, A. Ruth 2:7—‘A Midrashic Gloss’? ZAW 95 (1983) 121–23.

Hyman, R. T. Questions and Changing Identity in the Book of Ruth. USQR 39 (1984) 189–201.

———. Questions and the Book of Ruth. HS 24 (1983) 17–25.

Jongeling, B. "HZʾT NʿMY (Ruth 1:19)." VT 28 (1978) 474–77.

Köhler, L. Die Adoptionsform von Ruth 4:16. ZAW 29 (1909) 312–14.

Kutschef, E. Y. A History of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982.

Labuschagne, C. J. The Crux in Ruth 4:11. ZAW 79 (1967) 364–67.

Lacocque, A. Date et milieu du livre de Ruth. RHPR 59 (1979) 583–93.

Lachemann, E. R. Note on Ruth 4:7–8. JBL 56 (1937) 53–56.

Leggett D. The Levirate and Goel Institutions in the Old Testament. Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, 1974.

Levine, B. "In Praise of the Israelite Mišpāḥâ: Legal Themes in the Book of Ruth." In The Quest for the Kingdom of God. FS G. E. Mendenhall, ed. H. B. Huffman, F. A. Spina, and A. R. W. Green. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.95–106.

Levine, E. The Aramaic Version of Ruth. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1973.

Lipiński, E. Le mariage de Ruth. VT 26 (1978) 124–27.

Loretz, O. The Theme of the Ruth Story. CBQ 22 (1960) 291–99.

———. Das Verhältnis zwischen Rut-Story und David-Genealogie im Ruth-Buch. ZAW 89 (1977) 124–26.

May, H. G. Ruth’s Visit to the High Place at Bethlehem. JRAS (1939) 75–78.

McKane, W. Ruth and Boaz. TGUOS 19 (1961) 29–40.

Meinhold, A. Theologische Schwerpunkte im Buch Ruth und ihr Gewicht für seine Datierung. TZ 32 (1976) 129–37.

Moor, J. de. Narrative Poetry in Canaan. UF 20 (1988) 149–71.

———. The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part I). Or 53 (1984) 262–83.

———. The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part II). Or 55 (1986) 16–46.

Mundhenk, N., and Waard, J. de. Missing the Whole Point and What to Do about It—With Special Reference to the Book of Ruth. BT 26 (1975) 425–33.

Myers, J. The Linguistic and Literary Form of the Book of Ruth. Leiden: Brill, 1955.

Nielsen, K. Le choix contre le droit dans le livre de Ruth: De Faire de battage au tribunal. VT 35 (1985) 201–12.

Phillips, A. The Book of Ruth—Deception and Shame. JJS 37 (1986) 1–17.

Porten, B. The Scroll of Ruth: A Rhetorical Study. GCA 7 (1978) 23–49.

Prinsloo, W. S. The Theology of the Book of Ruth. VT 30 (1980) 330–41.

Rauber, D. Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth. JBL 89 (1970) 27–37.

Rebera, B. Yahweh or Boaz? Ruth 2:20 Reconsidered. BT 36 (1985) 317–27.

Richter, H.-F. Zum Levirat im Buch Ruth. ZAW 95 (1983) 123–26.

Robertson, E. The Plot of the Book of Ruth. BJRL 32 (1950) 207–28.

Rowley, H. H. The Marriage of Ruth. In The Servant of the Lord. Oxford: Blackwell, 1952. 169–94.

Sacon, K. The Book of Ruth: Its Literary Structure and Theme. AJBI 4 (1978) 3–22.

Sasson, J. M. "The Issue of Geʾullāh in Ruth." JSOT 5 (1978) 52–64.

Schneider, T. R. Translating Ruth 4:1–10 among the Tsonga People. BT 33 (1982) 301–8.

Segert, S. Vorarbeiten zu hebräischen Metrik: III. Zum Problem der metrische Elements im Buche Ruth. ArOr 25 (1967) 190–200.

Staples, W. The Book of Ruth. AJSL 53 (1936–37) 145–47.

———. Notes on Ruth 2:20 and 3:12. AJSL 54 (1938) 62–65.

Stinespring, W. F. Note on Ruth 2:19. JNES 3 (1944) 101.

Thompson, D., and Thompson, T. Some Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth. VT 18 (1968) 79–99.

Vaux, R. de. Ancient Israel. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Vellas, B. The Book of Ruth and Its Purpose. Theologia 25 (1954) 201–10.

Vesco, J. La date du livre de Ruth. RB 74 (1967) 235–47.

Vriezen, T. C. Two Old Cruces: a. Ruth iv 5. OTS 5 (1948) 80–88.

Wright, G. The Mother-Maid at Bethlehem. ZAW 98 (1986) 56–72.

Introduction

Canonical Status and Position

Bibliography

Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985. Bentzen, A. Introduction to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Copenhagen: Gad, 1957. Childs, B. S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Leiman, S. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Mishnaic Evidence. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 47. Hamden, CT: Archon, 1976. McDonald, L. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Pfeiffer, R. Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Harper, 1948. Soggin, J. A. Introduction to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1989. Sundberg, A. C. The Old Testament of the Early Church. HTS 20. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1964. Wolfenson, L. B. Implications of the Place of the Book of Ruth in Editions, Manuscripts, and Canon of the Old Testament. HUCA 1 (1924) 151–78.

Apart from one late (ninth century A.D.) challenge by an obscure Nestorian Christian commentator (see Beckwith, OT Canon, 305), the testimony to the canonical status of Ruth in both Jewish and Christian sources is uniform and voluminous. Both the NT (Matt 1:5; Luke 3:32) and Josephus (Ant. 5.9.1–4) draw on its contents precisely as they do other OT books. The earliest lists of the books of the canon include it, both Jewish (b. B. Bat. 14b, quoting a rabbinic teaching dating to the first two centuries A.D.) and Christian (Melito, Bishop of Sardis in the second century A.D.). And almost every Jewish and Christian source thereafter does likewise, in particular Origen and Jerome, both of whom studied under Jewish scholars. Only one talmudic statement even implies that there might have been some question on the part of some authorities about its canonical status. Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai is quoted (b. Meg. 7a) as saying Ecclesiastes is among the matters on which the school of Shammai was more lenient and the School of Hillel more stringent, but [all agreed that] Ruth, Song of Songs and Esther make the hands unclean (i.e., are canonical; see Beckwith, OT Canon, 304–5). Since the rabbi felt the need to affirm the canonicity of Ruth, it is implied that there must have been some question raised (as there unquestionably was with Song of Songs and Esther). For suggestions about the grounds on which Ruth was questioned, see Leiman, Canonization, 190 n. 104.

Although the canonicity of Ruth has been virtually accepted without question (but for the instances mentioned above), its position in the canon has been variable and has occasioned considerable controversy. In KJV and all subsequent modern English translations that stem from Christian circles, the book is found between Judges and 1 Samuel. This is also its position in the German, French, Arabic, and Syriac Bibles and in the Vulgate, all of which, including KJV, follow the order of the Septuagint. However, in NJPS and the printed editions of the Hebrew Bible, Ruth is found in the third division of the Jewish canon, the Kethubim or Writings. In the vast majority of Hebrew manuscripts and printed editions, Ruth is one of the five Festal Scrolls (Megilloth), which are grouped together because they are read at the five major festivals of the Jewish liturgical year.

Two different orders of the Festal Scrolls are found. The historically later order groups these scrolls according to the chronology of the liturgical year: Song of Songs at Passover (Nisan = March-April); Ruth at Shabuʿoth (weeks or Pentecost, fifty days after Passover, hence May-June); Lamentations at Ninth of Ab (=August-September), the commemoration of the destruction of the temple; Ecclesiastes at Sukkoth or Booths (Tishri = September-October); and Esther at Purim (Adar = February-March). This order is that found in modern editions of the Hebrew Bible printed prior to 1937, based on the best medieval manuscripts then known. The earlier sequence is that found in the work of the Tiberian Masoretes (ninth-tenth centuries A.D.)—Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther—the principle of which is generally considered to be the historical order of the era to which tradition assigned the books (Song of Songs being presumably the work of Solomon’s youth, Ecclesiastes his old age). This is the order of BHK and BHS, based as they are on Codex Leningradensis, the earliest complete codex of the Hebrew Bible and generally considered to represent the work of the Ben Asher family of Masoretic scholars. (Those manuscripts and editions of the Hebrew Bible in which the five Festal Scrolls are placed after Deuteronomy do not reflect a Jewish tradition in which these books are considered to belong to the Prophets rather than the Writings. They are simply medieval arrangements made in order to place together conveniently those books that alone are read in their entirety in the course of the Jewish liturgical year [see Wolfenson, HUCA 1 (1924) 154–58].)

Although this is the position of Ruth in the vast majority of manuscripts and printed editions, it is relatively speaking a late one. It could not have arisen until after the period in which it became customary to read these five books at the major festivals of the Jewish year, which custom gradually arose during the sixth to the tenth centuries A.D. (see Wolfenson, HUCA 1 [1924] 163–67; Beckwith, Canon, 202–3). If one takes into account, however, earlier Jewish tradition, the position of Ruth within the Writings is a variable one and raises the question of which position is original, a question not without import for such issues as the dating of the book.

Prior to the period of the Masoretes, our evidence for the order and arrangement of the books of the OT canon (other than the five books of the Pentateuch) is limited and open to differences of interpretation. Other than the Dead Sea Scrolls, whose complete biblical manuscripts are few and constitute in each case a single book per manuscript, we possess no complete Hebrew manuscripts prior to the tenth century A.D. Our evidence consists, rather, of lists set forth in the extant literature, either from Jewish sources themselves or from Christian sources who cite the practice current among Jews of their day. Our only detailed evidence from Jewish sources (for the statement of Josephus, see below) is that of the Babylonian Talmud (b. B. Bat. 14b), which reports the order of the books of the Prophets and the Writings. Although the Babylonian Talmud dates to the late fifth-early sixth centuries A.D., the list itself is a baraita, i.e., a quote from the Tannaim, the rabbinic scholars who lived during the first two centuries A.D. (cf. Beckwith, Canon, 26–27). This passage places Ruth at the beginning of the Writings immediately prior to Psalms (see Beckwith, Canon, 122; the passage is quoted in full in Leiman, Canonization, 51–53; not surprisingly then, this order is followed in a number of medieval Hebrew manuscripts; see the table in Wolfenson, HUCA 1 [1924] 160–61). The rest of the five books that were later to become the Festal Scrolls are listed in the Writings as separate books but are not placed together as a group. Though not explicitly stated, the number of books thus listed is nineteen, eight in the prophetic division and eleven in the Writings, which, together with the five books of the Pentateuch, produces a canon comprising twenty-four books. This agrees with the number invariably given in numerous other passages of the Talmud (for a representative list, see Leiman, Canonization, 53–56), as well as that implied by 4 Ezra 14:44–48, dating to ca. A.D. 100 (cf. Beckwith, Canon, 240–41). To this evidence from Jewish sources must be added that of Jerome, writing toward the end of the fourth century A.D. In this connection it is significant that Jerome was a Hebrew scholar who studied under various rabbis (on the authenticity of his claim to be citing Jewish sources, sometimes disputed, see Beckwith, Canon, 119–22, 204–6). Jerome also knows of a Jewish view that essentially agrees with the Babylonian Talmud. In the Prologus Galeatus (his preface to the Vulgate translation of Samuel-Kings) he states, some [i.e., Jews] set down . . . Ruth and Kinoth [Lamentations] among the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be counted [separately] in their computation, and that there are thus twenty–four books of the old Law (bracketed comments added; for the passage see Beckwith, Canon, 120).

However, in the earlier part of this same discussion, in marked contrast to the above, he states that the Jews count the number of the books of the OT as twenty-two since they number twenty-two letters in their alphabet. He then lists the books in the order of the three divisions of the Jewish canon, and the count of twenty-two results from listing Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. In regard to Ruth he states, Then they add the Book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated in it occurred in the days of the Judges (see Beckwith, Canon, 120). Here Ruth is listed not among the Writings but in the prophetic corpus between Judges and Samuel, the same position it has in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the rest of the Christian tradition. The testimony of other Church Fathers that is often cited to the same or similar effect is problematic since it seems most probable that they are dependent on Christian views when it comes to the order and arrangement of the OT canon (see the remarks of Beckwith, Canon, 183–85 for Melito of Sardis, 185–87 for Origen). The earliest enumeration often cited is from the last decade of the first century A.D. by Josephus, who also gives the number of OT books as twenty-two but does not list them (Against Apion 1.7–8). To obtain this number, Josephus must have combined Lamentations with Jeremiah, and although it might mean that he reckoned Ruth with Psalms (as in the talmudic order), it is generally concluded that he must have combined Ruth with Judges (cf. Beckwith, Canon, 253).

This evidence from early Jewish sources for a position of Ruth in the corpus of the Prophets rather than the Writings has raised a considerable controversy over which position is chronologically prior. The question is of some moment, for the position of Ruth in the Writings is often taken to indicate that it must date to the post-exilic era (see the discussion in Date below). The vast majority of commentators have concluded that the tradition that places Ruth among the Writings rather than the Prophets must be original. This conclusion has most frequently been argued on the basis of the received and traditional view of the development of the Christian canon, often termed the Alexandrian Canon Hypothesis, which until recently has virtually held sway in scholarly circles since its proposal in the eighteenth century (cf. the earlier introductions of Pfeiffer [1941] and Bentzen [1948] and the third edition of Soggin [1987]). According to this view, the hellenized Jews of Alexandria (and the diaspora in general) arranged and ordered the books of the Jewish canon differently from their Palestinian brethren and also included therein the books known to Protestantism as the Apocrypha and in Roman Catholic tradition as deuterocanonical, as attested in the earliest comprehensive manuscripts of the Septuagint. This Alexandrian arrangement is secondary to and derived from the canon of the Jews of Palestine and was that adopted by the developing early Church (for a succinct statement of the hypothesis and its development, see Sundberg, The OT of the Early Church, 3–40). Given this view of two different Palestinian and Alexandrian canons, it has seemed clear to most commentators that the order and division of the canon that placed Ruth after Judges derives from this Alexandrian canon and not from the Hebrew canon of the Jews of Palestine; hence it is not original (see, e.g., Rudolph, 23–24).

Recent investigations and discoveries, however, have not only rendered the view of a wider Alexandrian canon untenable (see Sundberg, OT Canon of the Early Church, 51–74; Beckwith, Canon, 382–86) but have also made equally doubtful the concomitant and generally accepted view (cf., e.g., Eissfeldt, Introduction, 564–68) that the canon of the Hebrew Bible was completed in three stages: the Law by the end of the fifth century B.C., the Prophets by the end of the third century B.C., and the Writings by the end of the first century A.D., in connection with the illusory Council of Jamnia (see the succinct overview of Childs, Introduction, 53–54). Indeed, these investigations and discoveries have so demonstrated both the complexity of the process of canonization and the paucity of our information, despite the volume of new data from the discoveries in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, that no synthesis is currently possible (cf. the remarks of Childs, Introduction, 54–57, and note the radically different conclusions of Sundberg, OT Canon of the Early Church; Beckwith, Canon; McDonald, Formation). However, two of the developments that have destroyed the consensus are important for our considerations here. First, it has become clear that hellenistic Judaism was not largely independent of Palestinian Judaism; indeed, there was a close community of language and ideas between the two (see Beckwith, Canon, 30–31). Second, related to this state of affairs, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed that, as had been postulated earlier on literary grounds, the majority of the Apocrypha (including Tobit, Judith, Baruch, I Maccabees, and the Additions to Daniel) were originally written in Hebrew, probably by Palestinian Jewish authors.

The implications for our question are obvious. The testimony of the ancient authorities cited above demonstrates that both arrangements of the canon—that with Ruth among the Prophets after Judges and that with Ruth among the Writings immediately before Psalms—existed among the Jews of Palestine, dating at least earlier than the first two centuries A.D. (see Beckwith, Canon, 181–222). It is simply no longer possible to posit that Ruth was moved to the Prophets by hellenized Jews whose canon is reflected in the Septuagint. It can only be the case that these different arrangements of the Prophets and the Writings arose among different elements of the Jewish community and existed side by side at least until the time of Jerome, late fourth century A.D. How the one arrangement later became exclusive to the rabbinic tradition as reflected in the Talmud and the other to the stream of tradition ultimately reflected in the Septuagint is simply unknown. Nor do we have any information to decide which of the two may be earlier or original (contra Eissfeldt, Introduction, 569; Gerleman, 1; for the view that there was no original order, see Wolfenson, HUCA 1 [1924] 170–75). It can only be said that the more plausible view (see Beckwith, Canon, 256) is that the tradition that numbered the books as twenty-two, with Ruth after Judges, is a later development arising from the somewhat artificial assimilation of the number of the books to the number of the letters of the alphabet. There is no plausible reason for a supposed earlier arrangement of twenty-two to be expanded to twenty-four. If this is the case, then the position of Ruth in the Writings immediately before Psalms is earlier and in this sense original (cf. Beckwith, Canon, 158–59, 252–56; note also the remarks of Campbell, 34–36).

Text

Bibliography

Baillet, M., Milik, J. T., and Vaux, R. de. Les ‘Petites Grottes’ de Qumrân. Discoveries in the Jadean Desert of Jordan 3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1962.

The text of Ruth upon which this translation and commentary are based is that of codex Leningrad B19A, Codex Leningradensis, siglum L, as it appears in BHS. This codex is dated to A.D. 1008 or 1009 and, pending the eventual completion of the critical edition of the text of the Aleppo Codex by the Hebrew University Bible Project, is the only available exemplar of the vocalized text of the Ben Asher family of Tiberian Masoretes with a critical apparatus and is still the oldest dated manuscript of the complete Hebrew Bible (BHS, xi). On the basis of this text, Rudolph’s judgment (25) that the text of Ruth has been very well preserved can hardly be gainsaid (cf. Gerleman, Hubbard, Sasson; contra Joüon). Only the last eight words of 2:7 present a textual conundrum incapable of solution, and this clause fortunately does not significantly affect a coherent understanding of that scene (see Comment thereto).

In regard to variant readings suggested by evidence in the versions, there are, in my opinion, only three passages where the text of the MT is inferior to such readings. In 1:13 is to be read for ; in 4:4 for ; and in 4:5 for . (See the discussion in loco.) Various commentators have suggested some two dozen or so further textual changes on the basis of readings in the LXX and Syr. (Rudolph, 25, for example lists seven further passages where he judges that the readings of the LXX merit priority.) Those that merit consideration will be discussed in loco, but none on close inspection presents a reading superior to the MT.

Further, a number of variants have been suggested on the basis of other Hebrew manuscripts and/or the Kethib/Qere readings of the MT (the apparatus of BHS records approximately eighteen such). Only five of these represent readings superior to the consonantal text of L. In 2:1 is preferable to ; in 3:12 is to be deleted (Kethib wĕlô Qere following the Masora); in 3:14 is to be read rather than and rather than ; and in 4:4 rather than (see the discussion in loco).

Finally, fragments of four manuscripts of Ruth have been unearthed in the discoveries at Qumran, two from cave 2, published in Les ‘Petites Grottes’ (71–75) and two from cave 4, as yet unpublished but studied by Campbell (40–41) from photographs. These texts are essentially Masoretic in type and evidence only one reading of consequence, namely, the variant in 3:14 just noted.

Unity

Bibliography

Ap-Thomas, D. Book of Ruth. ET 79 (1968) 369–73. Berlin, A. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1985. ———. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond, 1983. Brenner, A. Naomi and Ruth. VT 23 (1983) 385–97. Bush, F. Ruth 4:17, A Semantic Wordplay. In Go to the Land I Will Show You. FS D. W. Young, ed. J. Coleson and V. Matthews. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. 3–14. Childs, B. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. Tr. P. Ackroyd. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Fohrer, G. Introduction to the Old Testament. Tr. D. Green. New York: Abingdon, 1968. Glanzmann, G. The Origin and Date of the Book of Ruth. CBQ 21 (1959) 201–7. Hoftijzer, J. The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985. Kirkpatrick, P. G. The Old Testament and Folklore Study. JSOTSup 62. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988. Kugel, J. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. New Haven/London: Yale UP, 1981. Loretz, O. Das Verhältnis zwischen Rut-Story und David-Genealogie im Rut-Buch. ZAW 89 (1977) 124–26. May, H. Ruth’s Visit to the High Place at Bethlehem. JRAS (1939) 75–78. Moor, J. de. The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part I). Or 53 (1984) 262–83. ———. The Poetry of the Book of Ruth (Part II). Or 55 (1986) 16–46. Rowley, H. The Marriage of Ruth. In The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1965. 171–94. Segert, S. Vorarbeiten zur hebräischen Metrik, III: Zum Problem der metrischen Elemente im Buche Ruth. ArOr 25 (1967) 190–200. Shearman, S., and Curtis, J. Divine-Human Conflicts in the Old Testament. JNES 28 (1969) 231–42. Sheehan, J. The Word of God as Myth: The Book of Ruth. In The Word in the World. FS F L. Moriarty, ed. R. Clifford and G. MacRae. Weston, MA: Weston College, 1973. 35–46. Staples, W. The Book of Ruth. AJSL 53 (1937) 145–57. Wilson, R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven: Yale UP, 1977. ———. The Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research. JBL 94 (1975) 169–89. ———. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Wright, G. The Mother-Maid at Bethlehem. ZAW 98 (1986) 56–72. Zevit, Z. Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P. ZAW 94 (1982) 481–511.

Almost all who have worked on the book of Ruth agree that it is a unity, with the possible exception of the genealogy in 4:22. There are, in my opinion, no unevennesses, incongruities, repetitions, changes in literary style and diction, or apparent seams as have led to theories of composite origin in other OT texts. Indeed, given the all-consuming interest in and predilection for genetic issues that until the last few decades have dominated biblical studies, it is probably significant testimony to the obvious unity of the book that the attempts to posit earlier sources for the narrative have been so few. Two theories, at least, have been advanced, based upon supposed sufficient unevennesses and difficulties in the narrative to warrant them and positing on these grounds earlier variant stories.

Glanzmann has proposed a three-stage development of the story based upon the view that several stages of composition must be postulated to explain certain linguistic features of the book (CBQ 21 [1959] 207). But the argument is simply non sequitur. Besides a nebulous poetic character, which Glanzmann substantiates only by a passing reference to Myers’ study (for which see below), his linguistic evidence for the first stage, taken to be an old poetic tale in oral form, is twofold. First, it is based simply on the book’s onomasticon (all of which except Obed and Boaz occur nowhere else in the OT), which Glanzmann finds to be early and non-Israelite on the basis of comparisons with the Ugaritic onomasticon and which hence could not have been invented by a later author. However, apart from the general weakness of the argument from silence the view entails, later research has documented these names for the most part as general West Semitic and not limited to the second millennium B.C. (cf. the comments of Sasson, 17–21, 241; Hubbard, 88–90, 94–95). There is no evidence, then, that they are non-Israelite, nor need they be early. The second piece of evidence for this stage is the postulate that the imperfect forms with nun paragogicum, of which six are found in Ruth, are not characteristic of classical Hebrew prose but of the oldest Hebrew poetry (CBQ 21 [1959] 207). In fact, exactly the opposite is the case; cf. Hoftijzer’s full study of these forms, which documents eighty-four uses in prose passages versus sixty-one in poetic texts, not all of which by any means are old (Function and Use, 5, 58). The evidence for the other two stages are the existence, on the one hand, of postulated late forms, taken to be evidence of editorial work in the postexilic period (CBQ 21 [1959] 204), and, on the other hand, the postulated classical, pre-exilic prose style of the rest of the narrative, interpreted as evidence of a pre-exilic intermediate literary stage (205). But if it were granted that the forms cited are late, the unexamined assumption that they are editorial work is based upon no evidence whatsoever and is most improbable. (For their interpretation as evidence of language change over time, based upon principles of historical linguistics, see the discussion in Date below.)

Recently, Brenner has suggested that the book of Ruth is composed of two still distinct strands, a Naomi story and a Ruth story, each of which originally belonged to a separate . . . folk-tale, and that the seams which combine them are still discernible (VT 23 [1983] 385). The seams, however, never appear; the evidence for two strands is Brenner’s opinion that there are certain difficulties which cannot be easily dismissed (385). Upon closer examination, however, these difficulties are such because Brenner chooses to make them so; i.e., a careful interpretation of the problem of the story, its plot, and the characterization of the chief protagonists reveals that these difficulties are an integral part of a smooth, well-told story. Thus, the problem of who is being redeemed in 4:13–17, Naomi, Ruth, or both (385–86), is one that Brenner seeks to establish by a passing reference in a footnote to Sasson’s interpretation. In point of fact, Ruth is not described in 4:14–15 as the agent of redemption of Naomi (385–86). The agent of redemption of Naomi, rather, is clearly and unmistakably the child born to Ruth and Boaz. That Ruth is not thereafter mentioned is a coherent part of the resolution of the problem of the story set forth in 4:13–17 (see the Explanation thereto below), namely, the death and emptiness that have afflicted Naomi’s life. Second, the exchange of roles and dominant positions of Naomi and Ruth in successive scenes (394, 386–87) pose also no real difficulty once the major problem is elucidated, to the resolution of which the plot of the story is devoted. Naomi is the major character in chap. 1 because that chapter is devoted to setting forth both the factual and the affective dimensions of the problem of the story, the death and emptiness that have afflicted her life (see the Explanation sections for 1:7–19a and 1:19b–22 below, and esp. Table 1 in Genre below). Similarly, there is nothing incongruous or difficult about Ruth’s and Naomi’s roles in chap. 2. Brenner badly understates Naomi’s role and overstates Ruth’s. Naomi’s inactivity initially is consistent with her bitterness and despair so powerfully portrayed in chap. 1 and is not true of her through the whole chapter. On the contrary, in the third scene, vv 17b–23, she erupts into excited questions prompted by the large amount of grain Ruth has gleaned and the quantity of food left over from her noon meal. Moreover, upon hearing that Ruth’s benefactor has been Boaz, she bursts into glad words of praise, calling on Yahweh to bless him. Naomi has come back to life again and so takes the initiative in the following scene. Nor does Ruth simply act independently and dutifully share her plans with Naomi (386). Rather, she seeks Naomi’s permission for her gleaning (2:2; see Comment thereto), revealing Naomi’s dominant role as mother–in-law throughout the story. In short, all of Brenner’s supposed difficulties can be integrated into a coherent whole given a correct understanding of the problem of the story and its resolution as will be made clear in the following commentary.

Although not supposing separate stories later combined, Myers has argued for an earlier stage in which the story circulated orally in poetic form. Myers supports his theory in general by the rather subjective judgment that the scenes of the book are fraught with poetic associations (Linguistic and Literary Form, 34), and in particular by (1) finding that many specific words and phrases have parallels in OT poetry (34–36) and (2) attempting to scan a number of passages as poetic following the theories of meter and poetic parallelism then current (37–42). Even granting the validity of the theory of Hebrew poetry to which he subscribes, most scholars believe Myers has failed to establish his case. Segert (ArOr 25 [1967] 190–200), for example, notes that Myers often had to engage in emendation in order to get his poetic lines to scan metrically. More to the point, however, the easy differentiation between prose and poetry that characterized the older view has now been seriously challenged in favor of a far more complex taxonomy of elevated style in which the distinction between Hebrew prose and poetry is not sharp and clear cut and is sometimes difficult to make (see Kugel, Idea, 59–95, esp. 85; for a succinct and helpful discussion, see Berlin, Dynamics, 1–7). Thus, de Moor has argued for a West-Semitic narrative poetry and rather successfully applied it to the book of Ruth (Or 53 [1984] 262–83; 55 [1986] 16–46). Whatever one concludes about the validity of such views, they demonstrate the fallacy of a theory of a poetic original for the book. And to give the coup de grâce to all such views, recent field research in folklore studies has demonstrated that to distinguish between oral and written texts on the basis of stylistic features is no longer tenable (see Kirkpatrick, OT and Folklore, 116–17, esp. 51–72).

There continue to be attempts, based upon a priori theories of the prevalence of myth and mythic ritual in Israelite religion, to argue that the story originated in and/or alludes to one or another of the fertility cult legends that are supposed to be endemic to the