Author’S Preface
AUTHOR’S PREFACE
There are not many commentaries in English on the book of Ruth, so no apology is needed for producing this one. It is meant primarily for the general reader. For this reason it is not a technical work, and the translation most often referred to is the Authorized Version, since this is most generally available. But I hope that the general reader will not mind the fact that, since there are so few commentaries on this book, I have sometimes ventured on a rather technical piece of information for the benefit of the student who reads Hebrew. These notes are all brief and can be passed over by those who have no use for them.
It may help, too, if I explain for the non-Hebraist that Hebrew was originally (and often still is) written without vowels. When we speak of ‘the consonantal text’ we mean the text written without vowels. Usually this presents no problem, for the Hebraist becomes quite used to reading the vowelless text. Now and then it results in ambiguity, for it is sometimes possible to think of more than one set of vowels which might be supplied to the consonants. Because of this there are some passages where the possibilities must be looked at very carefully.
In the early centuries of our era certain Jewish scholars, whom we call ‘the Massoretes’, did a great deal of work on the text of the Hebrew Bible. They compared the manuscripts known to them and copied only those which seemed superior. In this way they standardized the text, which is thus called ‘the Massoretic text’. And, as a help to those who followed them, they developed a system for indicating the vowels which the consonantal text lacked. They had a great reverence for the sacred text, so they did not disturb it. Their vowel-signs, or ‘points’, were little marks for the most part placed above or below the consonants. This process is called ‘pointing’, and the old text they worked on may be called ‘the unpointed text’ as well as ‘the consonantal text’.
Before the Massoretes did their work, the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the translation being called ‘the Septuagint’. This translation sometimes appears to have been made from a text slightly different from the Massoretic, and it thus repays careful study. Almost all the Hebrew manuscripts of the biblical books known to us contain the Massoretic text. Thus lacking anything with which to compare it, we cannot tell whether the Massoretes decided wisely or not. But when the Septuagint enables us to say, ‘such and such a Hebrew text must have been before the translators who produced this translation’, we can compare this reading with that in the Massoretic text. The Septuagint is thus valuable as giving us information about textual variants which otherwise would be lost to us. A similar comment may be made about other ancient translations, notably those into Latin and Syriac.
The book of Ruth is sometimes regarded as very simple, so simple indeed that no commentary on it is required. Obviously I do not share that opinion! It is true that much in the book is straightforward. But it is also true that there are quite a few difficulties, including some which seem insoluble in the light of our present knowledge. But there is much that can be learned from a close study of the text, and by taking into consideration recent archaeological discoveries, notably those at Mari, Nuzi, Alalakh and Ugarit. I trust that this commentary will be useful in helping to bring before the general reader some of this new knowledge.
In conclusion, may I express my indebtedness to Professor Donald Wiseman for his careful reading of the typescript and his helpful comments. I have benefited greatly from his advice. I have also profited from suggestions made by the Rev. Professor F. I. Andersen. His expertise in Moabite studies,1 allied as it is to a wide knowledge of Hebrew, made his comments particularly valuable for a book with a Moabitess as a principal character. I am also grateful to my colleague the Rev. Gordon Garner, and to my former colleague the Rev. James Fraser, for their help on a number of points on which I consulted them. These good friends are not, of course, responsible for the imperfections that remain. But this book would have been a good deal poorer without their help.
Leon Morris