Introduction

Among the historical books of the Old Testament, after the book of Judges in the Greek (LXX), Latin (Vulgate), and Slavonic-Russian Bible, the book of Ruth is placed (LXX: Ρούθ, Vulgate: Ruth). “The eighth book of the Old Testament: Ruth is called thus because it contains the history of Ruth. Ruth was of Moabite origin; but rejecting her kinship and her fathers’ superstition, she turned to the true worship of God and moved to Bethlehem in Judah; there she entered into marriage with Boaz from the tribe of Judah. From her came the descent of David in the following manner: Boaz fathered Obed from Ruth, Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David” (synopsis of Athanasius). In the Hebrew Bible, the book of Ruth stands in the third part of the Old Testament canon—in the section of the Writings, the “Ketuvim,” occupying the fifth place among them (after the books of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and the Song of Songs). The latter position of Ruth in the Bible was, one must suppose, the original one; its placement in the Greek Bible between the books of Judges and Kings may have been occasioned by the fact that the events described in it relate to the time of the Judges, and on account of Ruth’s relation to David the book became, according to blessed Augustine (Christian Teaching, book 2, chapter 13), the beginning, or vestibule, to the books of Kings, which depict the history of the royal house of David; moreover, by adding the book of Ruth to the book of Judges (as the Lament of Jeremiah to the book of the prophet Jeremiah), the total number of books of the Old Testament was achieved as 22 (equal to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet), accepted by Josephus (“On the Antiquity of the Jewish People”—Against Apion I, 8), by the Jewish synagogue, and by some Church fathers (Origen, blessed Jerome, holy Epiphanius).

The characteristic distinction of the book of Ruth from other biblical books consists in the fact that its content is equally alien both from the main current of the historical life of Israel depicted in the historical and prophetic books of the Old Testament and from the inspired contemplation and sacred-lyric outpouring of eternal feelings of the human heart found in the wisdom books (Psalms, Proverbs, the book of Job, the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes): the book of Ruth transports the reader into the narrow circle of an ancient Hebrew family, depicting with extraordinary vividness and attractiveness the fate, trials, and needs of the main figure—the Moabitess Ruth—as well as her virtues and final glorification through marriage with the Bethlehemite Boaz, by which she entered the people of God and became worthy to be the great-grandmother of King David. In the nature of its content, in the distinctness of character portrayals and in the manner of presentation, the book of Ruth resembles perhaps only certain scenes from the life of the patriarchs in the book of Genesis; in its external form it is rightly called an ancient Hebrew story from village life, an idyllic family picture full of the most sincere simplicity and naiveté. Despite this, the book of Ruth touches upon the general history of Israel in two respects: at the starting point of the narrative—the withdrawal of the Hebrew family of the Bethlehemite Elimelech to the land of Moab due to famine that had struck the land of the Hebrews (Ruth 1:1-2), and still more at the ending genealogy of King David (Ruth 4:17-22) at the end of the book (cf. 1 Chr 2:5-10), a genealogy whose inclusion of Ruth’s name has been inserted into the Gospel genealogy of the Lord (Matt 1:4-6). This historical feature of the book—the connection with the genealogy of David (explicitly emphasized in (Ruth 4:17))—was the cause of Ruth’s inclusion in the Old Testament canon; and since David was the father of Jesus Christ and the genealogy of David is a necessary part of the genealogy of the Savior, it is evident that the book of Ruth is also important from the New Testament perspective, from the standpoint of the historical foundations of Christianity. In this sense, blessed Theodoret, answering the question: why was the story of Ruth written? replies: “first of all, for the sake of Christ the Master; for from Ruth He was born in the flesh. Therefore the divine Matthew, when writing the genealogy, passed over renowned women virtuous in deed—Sarah, Rebekah, and others—but mentioned Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and even Bathsheba, thereby instructing that the Only-begotten Son of God became incarnate for the sake of all people, both Jews and other nations, both sinners and righteous” (Answer to Question I on the book of Ruth, Russian trans., Moscow, 1855, p. 313; cf. blessed Jerome of Stridon, Four Books of Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Works, part 16, Russian trans. Kiev 1901, p. 7). At the same time, according to blessed Theodoret, “although the story of Ruth was bound to be written for the sake of the Master, this history is in itself sufficient to bring all benefit to those knowing how to profit from such narratives; for it describes to us the heavy misfortunes and praiseworthy endurance of Naomi, the chastity and love toward her mother-in-law of her daughters-in-law, especially of Ruth, who by heartfelt piety and in memory of her husband preferred a decrepit old woman to her parents. The history also shows the virtue of Boaz” (Question I on Ruth, p. 314–315). In general, “the exposition and composition in this narrative are simple and graphic, distinguished by such an epic tone that it is altogether mistaken and unfounded to ascribe the composition of the book to the period after the captivity, which had a predominantly legislative character, for everything in it clearly testifies to the original era of Hebrew family life.” Thus, vainly did some perceive in Ruth a tendency to uphold the obligatory nature of the levirate (cf. Deut 25:5-10) marriage (Benary, De hebraeorum leviratu, 1835; Bertholet, Einleitung...): if indeed Ruth’s marriage to Boaz (Ruth 2:20) was levirate (Latin levir—brother-in-law) in the ancient Hebrew sense (Gen 38:7-11), (cf. Deut 25:5-10)—though strictly speaking, it cannot be called thus, since Boaz was not the brother of Ruth’s deceased husband—in any case this feature appears wholly incidental in the book’s narrative and has no essential connection with the main thread of the account. Likewise, one cannot see in the book of Ruth, as many scholars do (Geiger, Urschrift u. Ubersetzungen der Bibel, 1857, p. 49 ff, Bertholet, Stellung der Israelten z. Fremden, p. 145 ff; Graetz, Geschichte der Juden II, 2, p. 136 ff; Nowack, Handkommentar z. Alten Test. Richter—Ruth, 1900, p. 184–185, etc.), a protest against the post-captivity rigorism of Ezra (Ezra 9-10), Nehemiah (Neh 13:23-31), and their allies, who did not permit marriages of Jews with foreign women, with the implication that the example of the great ancestress of great David, the Moabitess Ruth, was the best refutation of the wrongfulness of those zealots of the letter of the law (Deut 23:3; Exod 34:16). But, apart from the artificiality of such a supposed protest, a post-captivity authorship of Ruth is improbable already by the very character of its content and exposition shown above; nor do the placement of it in the 3rd part of the Old Testament canon prove such late origin of Ruth (contrary to the opinion of Ewald, Histor.—Kritisch. Einleitung in d. A. T., 1886, p. 438 ff. and others), inasmuch as in this part are found the books of Psalms, Proverbs, and others of pre-captivity origin, nor do the Aramaisms found in the Hebrew text of the book, which occur also in the most ancient biblical books. On the contrary, the following data from the book itself speak for ancient origin of Ruth, namely during the first kings of the Hebrews: 1) the mode of expression (Ruth 1:1; cf. Judg 19:1) “in those days when the judges ruled...” shows that the events described in the book from the time of the Judges did not lie far distant from the time of the sacred writer of the book; 2) the genealogy (in Ruth 4:17-22) extends only to David; if the composition of the book belonged to a later epoch in the period of kings, nothing would have hindered the inclusion of the names of the royal descendants of David (moreover, after the captivity there was no sense in depicting the genealogy of David alone); 3) only in relation to David would a detailed account of Ruth’s great-grandmother have had significance; not without reason do they point in this regard to an incident from the life of David (1 Sam 22:1-3) (during the persecution by Saul, David placed his father and mother with the Moabite king), showing that the memory of the Moabite origin of David’s great-grandmother was fresh both for him and for his contemporaries. The authority of the Septuagint, which placed Ruth directly after Judges and before 1 Kings in the biblical codex, as well as the testimony of the Talmud (tract. Baba-Batra 14b) that Samuel was the writer of Ruth, convinces us that “the composition of the book belongs to the time of King David and was made by one of the prophets then living.”

* * *

In modern times, among others, the renowned historian of Hebrew literature Gustav Karpeles acknowledges that “the story of Ruth” (i.e., the book of Ruth) from the beginning was incorporated into the book of Judges (forming the concluding part of its narratives), and that only later did Ruth undergo separation from it and inclusion among the Writings. G. Karpeles. History of Hebrew Literature. Trans. under the editorship of A. Ya. Garkavi Vol. I. SPB. 1896, p. 41 and 50. But it is easier to understand the reverse—the transferral of Ruth from the Writings to the section of historical books—than the supposed here artificial separation of a part (the story of Ruth) from the whole (the book of Judges) with arbitrary transference of the former to the 3rd part of the Old Testament canon.

Prof. A. A. Olesnitsky. Directive Teachings Concerning Sacred Scripture of the Old and New Testament from the Works of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church. SPB. 1894, p. 43.