Section 12

When we turn our focus on Zurich, however, the picture is very different. Ruth received a great deal of attention in this centre of the Reformation, an interest that in the period between 1530 and 1600 generated a whole range of commentaries by a variety of authors, a number of which were reprinted several times and also translated. As we will see, the Book of Ruth was especially well suited to help propagate a distinct Christian morality for the citizens of an early modern city, a cause championed by the reformers of Zurich.

This chapter falls into three parts: the first section provides an account of the commentaries on the Book of Ruth composed in Reformation Zurich; the second investigates the identification of the Moabite Ruth as a ‘model Christian’; finally, the third section moves beyond the more narrow exegetical issues to examine the close relationship between exegesis and practical expressions of authority in the urban context.

Theodor Bibliander (1505–64), one of Pellikan’s colleagues at the Zurich Academy, also turned his attention to Ruth.²¹ In his position as a professor at the Academy, Bibliander completed three series of lectures on the Old Testament.²² Ruth was his subject twice, in 1537 and 1549, on each occasion at the conclusion of his treatment of Judges.²³ Unfortunately Bibliander never published his exegetical observations, but his preparatory notes have survived²⁴ and numerous handwritten records of the content of his 1537 lectures on Ruth also circulated, prepared by Heinrich Bullinger, Rudolf Gwalther, Heinrich Buchmann and Christoph Schappeler, who had been in his audience.²⁵

Unlike the other commentators on Ruth to appear in this chapter, Ludwig Lavater (1527–86) was never a professor at the Academy. From the mid-sixteenth century, however, Lavater belonged to the innermost circle of leaders of the Zurich church, and he was the third most productive author in his city, ranked after Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolf Gwalther. Lavater became archdeacon of the Grossmünster in 1550 and succeeded Rudolf Gwalther as head of the Zurich church in 1585. To subsequent generations he became known as ‘Ghost-Lavater’ (‘Gespenster-Lavater’), a testament to his remarkably successful work Von den Gespenstern.²⁶ Lavater directed a great deal of attention to Old Testament texts, and in 1578 he published in Latin The Book of Ruth, an exposition in twenty-eight sermons.²⁷ This commentary would be republished in 1601 in Heidelberg, again in Latin,²⁸ but in 1586 it had also appeared in an English translation that, according to the title page of the work, had been carried out by an 11-year-old child.²⁹

The list of commentaries on Ruth composed in sixteenth-century Zurich is completed by the work of Johannes Wolf (1521–72), who had become Professor of Old Testament in Zurich in 1562. The majority of Wolf’s works appeared posthumously, including his commentary on Ruth, which was published in 1598 as an appendix to his commentary on Judges.³⁰

From the outset, Christian commentators on Ruth identified two distinct parts to the text: the narrative of events up to and including the account of the birth of Obed (Ruth 1–4:17) and the short genealogy that leads to David (Ruth 4:18–22). The Zurich commentators also adopted this traditional exegetical pattern, holding that the Book of Ruth, like the Bible as a whole, worked towards Christ. This interpretation, which understood the David genealogy as the climax of the Book of Ruth, was trailed to some extent by the fact that the New Testament made specific reference to this genealogy, at Matthew 1:5, but without any reference to the preceding story of Ruth. For Pellikan the Book of Ruth told of the origin of David,³¹ while for Lavater, ‘the goal and actual intention of this short account is show the ancestry of David and in particular of our lord and redeemer Jesus Christ’.³² The Book of Ruth was thus understood as a divinely inspired family tree of Christ.³³ Heinrich Bullinger and Rudolf Gwalther entitled their contemporaneous record of Bibliander’s second Ruth-cycle simply ‘The short book of Ruth, which contains the ancestry of David’.³⁴

If we were to linger with these preliminary issues, we would observe that all our Zurich authors noted inconsistencies in the chronology of David’s ancestry, but none deemed these particularly problematic.³⁵ Pellikan believed that the account might be ascribed to the time of the judge Jephtha,³⁶ while Lavater and Wolf eschewed a decisive dating.³⁷ Pellikan also addresses the issue of a possible source; he finds a candidate in the ‘Great Book of the kings of Judah’, to which reference is made in Kings and Chronicles. He notes that although this ‘Great Book’ is now lost, its essence has survived.³⁸ Pellikan had heard these ideas voiced in Bibliander’s lectures and adopted them as part of his own interpretation of the text.³⁹ Lavater, however, was sceptical about the authorship thesis advanced by Bibliander and Pellikan and with some hesitation ascribed the work to either Samuel or Esra.⁴⁰ For Lavater authorship was not of particular significance for it was enough to know, he believed, that the Book of Ruth was written by holy men through the work of the Holy Spirit and that its canonicity was therefore without question.⁴¹

In keeping with the Zurich reformers’ intentions, the terms exemplum, virtus and imitatio serve as leitmotivs of their exposition. The character of their exegesis is well expressed in the title of Pellikan’s German commentary, according to which the Book of Ruth is a ‘holy short book, that contains much that is of use and many good lessons and that teaches many virtues that become every pious Christian’, additionally this book ‘is of great service and use to the head of every household and to all who love the Word of God’.⁴⁴ Within the text itself Pellikan addresses the usefulness of the narrative of Ruth in greater detail: in this book the reader will learn of fear of God, of a holy and honest life and of true faith and true hope and will see how piety, faithfulness and willingness to serve receive their due reward.⁴⁵ Listening to Bibliander’s first Ruth-cycle, Bullinger and Gwalther summarized his exposition under the title ‘Ruth, a memorable play, in which in a wondrous way faith, womanly modesty, virtue and blessing are described’.⁴⁶ According to Lavater the Book of Ruth provided outstanding examples and guidance on how to act for ‘married couples, parents-in-law, daughters-in-law, widows, fathers, servants and day labourers’.⁴⁷ The various protagonists are thus also representative of various offices, roles and situations in which individuals might find themselves in the course of their lives, and these figures therefore model the ideal performance of these roles, or how their challenges are to be overcome. According to Wolf, the Holy Spirit, the author of this book, wants to spur the reader to contemplate the examples presented in the story;⁴⁸ Bibliander stressed the rewards of a virtuous life such as that presented in the Book of Ruth.⁴⁹

How, according to the theologians of Zurich, could Ruth, Naomi and Boaz serve as practical role models for their readers? A synopsis of their commentaries generates a catalogue of virtues that is almost the epitome of a perfect, virtuous life.

In her attitude towards her mother-in-law Ruth showed herself to be both loyal and responsible; she was obedient, very hard working and also deferential. For Pellikan these characteristics were more desirous in a woman than beauty and physical appeal.⁵⁰ Ruth also demonstrated great persistence, even in difficult circumstances. She was grateful and patient, possessed great piety and placed all her trust in God. Additionally, in both speech and behaviour she was restrained. In Wolf’s summation, ‘She is a model for all women’.⁵¹

Naomi also distinguished herself – in her love for Ruth, her modesty on her return and her piety, gratitude and intelligence.⁵² And finally, Boaz is the perfect head of the household⁵³ and as such provides a model for the father in every family,⁵⁴ his maintenance of his household is exemplary, he shows concern for his workers and he is friendly. He also helps the poor and those in need.⁵⁵ The humility and discipline of Boaz are to be valued, unlike the carefree attitudes of youth.⁵⁶ He did not drink to excess and was a man of honour. He kept his promise to marry Ruth, even though it was not made publically. He did not marry Ruth for his own sexual pleasure, but because it was the will of God that he do so.⁵⁷

From the interaction of these model figures, the Zurich theologians are repeatedly able to draw more general principles, such as the observation that children learn from their elders and should obey their parents,⁵⁸ that it is necessary for children to be raised well,⁵⁹ that parents have a role as models, that is it is the duty of parents to tend to their children and their children’s affairs.⁶⁰ If one reads Ruth, one will also learn how to greet someone and respond in a way that is respectable and orderly,⁶¹ and how a betrothal should be formed – in particular, children should not marry without the permission of their parents.⁶² The readers will also be shown that restraint is necessary when eating, drinking or celebrating⁶³ and that their words and behaviour should not cause offense, especially in relations with the opposite sex.⁶⁴

The exposition of the Zurich commentators makes clear, sometimes explicitly, that they believed that the accumulated virtues that could be found in the Book of Ruth were lacking in contemporary Zurich society. For this reason, the mirror metaphor that appears in the title of this chapter seems particularly apposite, for the Book of Ruth functions as a mirror of the virtues that allows society to identify the discrepancies between the ideal and the actual. A marginal note in Wolf’s commentary makes the point clearly: ‘Exemplum Ruthae omnibus imitandum’ – the example of Ruth should be followed in everything.⁶⁵

For Pellikan there was absolutely nothing offensive to be found in this episode: he instructed his audience ‘that no one should think anything scandalous here’ and that ‘here the talk is not of the desires of the flesh’.⁶⁶ For Pellikan Ruth’s appeal to Boaz is nothing other than the legitimate request for protection and support mentioned above;⁶⁷ that her actions should take place secretly in the darkness of the night is explained by the fact that Naomi and Ruth did not know how Boaz would respond and wished not to cause any offence.⁶⁸ Pellikan suggests that Boaz could have completely misinterpreted the scene – that is, as a blunt invitation to sexual relations – in particular if he had indulged in too much drinking beforehand. But because Boaz was always restrained in his consumption of alcohol, he did not misinterpret Ruth’s intentions.⁶⁹ Pellikan had earlier attended Bibliander’s 1537 lectures on Ruth, in which his colleague had resolved the issue in similar form, declaring ‘Nil inhonesti egerunt’ – they did nothing that was dishonourable.⁷⁰

The episode is interpreted differently by Lavater. Naomi and Ruth’s intention was not in and of itself questionable; they only chose the wrong means to achieve it and other paths and possibilities had been open to them.⁷¹ The positive outcome of the affair is not to be attributed to the two women, but rather to the goodness and providence of God and to Boaz’s blameless behaviour.⁷² Lavater does not believe Ruth’s broader exemplary quality to be diminished, and indeed he relieves her of some responsibility when he points out that Ruth was not sufficiently acquainted with local customs.⁷³ But he does limit her exemplary nature in that he acknowledges that in this particular case on three grounds Ruth’s behaviour cannot serve as in any way exemplary. First, the Bible tells of the behaviour of holy men that must be adjudged bad, such as Lot’s incest, David’s adultery and the disobedience of the prophet Jonah, in order to provide not models but, by contrast, examples of the sinful nature of humans.⁷⁴ Secondly, a number of Old Testament practices have been made obsolete by the New Covenant.⁷⁵ Thirdly, there are exceptional circumstances, such as the sacrifice of Isaac, that are so individual that they cannot be drawn upon for arguments in support of contemporary behaviour.⁷⁶

Lavater is concerned to protect the integrity of Ruth as a Christian model, but at the same time it is evident that he wants keep at bay any wrongful application of her behaviour in his own time. In other words, Lavater’s understanding retains Ruth’s exemplary role, but in this particular case it is as a negative example, brought to the readers’ attention in order to show how they should not act, as Lavater never tires of stressing: ‘Although Boaz subsequently will praise Ruth, one must not believe that he agrees with all aspects of her actions. And therefore no one may misuse these women as models and argue thus: “If it was permitted of them, then it is also permitted of me”. The errors of those who are holy should make us more cautious and not incite us to sin’.⁷⁷

Wolf is somewhat more reticent than Lavater. He notes that for a number of reasons the advice of Naomi must appear reprehensible to the reader, but suggests that this response is principally a result of the distance in time from the events recorded in the Book of Ruth and lack of knowledge of the customs of that time.⁷⁸ Wolf avoids any criticism of Naomi and Ruth, allowing the events to appear in his commentary entirely virtuous and correct. This rendering does not appear to have sat entirely easily with him. Certainly an insertion entitled ‘Much that is recorded in Holy Scripture is not to be imitated’ suggests that he did not interpret the behaviour of Naomi and Ruth as an ‘exemplum’: ‘Now it is however so, that much is reported in Holy Scripture that God in no way intends for us to imitate, or he himself indicts it and warns us by its example to be careful, or he leaves it to us so that we might consider it with attention to laws, morals and the times’.⁷⁹

It must be noted that the primary purpose of the exegesis that emerged from the Zurich Academy was neither to contribute to scholarship nor to sustain the faithful; this theological work was intended for other pastors, who would allow it to feed into their sermons and thus magnify its impact and ensure it found a wide audience. The best-known of such works is Bullinger’s collection of sermons, the Decades, which had never been preached but rather served as exemplars for pastors working on their own exposition of scripture.⁸⁰ A similar intention also lay behind the commentaries on Ruth. Today Pellikan’s Commentaria Bibliorum might be termed a handbook of exegesis, for it provided its reader with the essential exegetical material in concise form that could be rapidly assimilated; its German version was specifically intended for ‘the educated and the uneducated, that is for both pastors and laity’.⁸¹ Both Lavater and Wolf also appear to have had a wide audience in mind, as is made evident by their division of their commentaries not into books or parts or chapters but into sermons. These sermons were never given as printed – and certainly not in Latin – but their content could be adopted by pastors into their own sermons. In both content and form the Zurich theologians’ exegesis shared a common final goal: the shaping of society according to moral principles drawn from and exemplified by biblical models.

The efforts of the pastorate to forge the moral character of society were supported by similarly aimed measures by the secular authorities that are often identified by the term ‘social discipline’.⁸² The latter processes, which were socio-politically motivated and must be understood within the context of attempts to consolidate political authority, did not always replicate the motives of the church precisely: in content, however, they were closely related to the concerns of the church. The intentions of the authorities can be read from the flood of regularly announced so-called morals mandates and parallel the views expressed in the sixteenth-century Zurich commentaries on the Book of Ruth. The morals mandates denounce idleness and a dissolute life; they criticize the consumption of alcohol, lavish wedding celebrations and luxury. Clothing mandates were intended to ensure the citizens were decently and suitably dressed; eating and drinking, gambling, dancing and overly exuberant activity at markets and fairs were regulated; and, finally, a close eye was kept to ensure the interaction of the sexes took place within correct boundaries.⁸³

The moral precepts and behaviour that we find in the exegetical commentaries drawn from the example of Ruth are nothing other than the ecclesiastical counterpart to the social disciplining conducted by the secular powers. Ecclesiastical and secular authorities, which in Zurich were particularly closely intertwined, had different motives and different means – preaching for the former, decrees for the latter – but they shared a common goal, to forge a society characterized by an ideal common morality. The proximity of the interests of the two bodies could hardly be better symbolized than by the fact that it was the parish clergy who proclaimed the secular mandates.⁸⁴ From one pulpit the congregation received both the decrees of the secular authorities and their exegetical underpinnings. The secular and ecclesiastical powers came together in that pulpit as they worked towards the moral improvement of society.