1. Date
1. Date
There are few indications of the date of this book. The author, of course, is quite unknown. There is a Rabbinic tradition that Samuel composed the book (Talmud, Baba Bathra, 14b), but the tradition is late and does not appear to be soundly based.
Most scholars date the book late. They point out that it is found in the Hebrew Bible in the Ketûbîm, the third division of the Canon, among the five Megillôt, or ‘rolls’ (the others being Esther, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Lamentations), which is taken to indicate that the book was written later than the prophetic writings. This, however, obviously does not follow. It simply raises the question, ‘When was Ruth first put among the Ketûbîm?’ There is nothing to indicate that this arrangement was primitive and a good deal to show that it was not.
It is difficult to be sure of the date of order of the books in the LXX, but it is certainly old. Most agree that it is our oldest evidence. In this order Ruth is placed among the historical books, immediately after Judges. Gerleman notes that this is the case with other ancient versions also, and he sees in it evidence for an old Jewish tradition that Ruth has a close connection with the historical books.2 This is apparently supported by Josephus, who says there are twenty-two books in the Canon.3 Though Josephus does not say in so many words that Judges and Ruth were numbered together as one book, it is generally agreed that this must have been the case (no hypothesis which rejects this seems to have any plausibility). The idea that there are twenty-two books in the Old Testament is very common in early discussions. P. Katz speaks of it as the earliest arrangement we can trace.4 He cites and approves T. Zahn’s statement ‘that from 90 to 400 AD we have an almost unbroken chain of witnesses for the fact that the Palestinian Jews not only had a theory about the 22 books of the Canon, but also as a rule used a Bible consisting of 22 scrolls’.5 Another way of counting up the books made the total twenty-four (as in 4 Ezra 14:44f.; G. H. Box commenting on this verse says, ‘In the Talmud and Midrash the O.T. is regularly termed “the twenty-four holy Scriptures” ’6). This appears to mean that Ruth was separated from Judges (and Lamentations from Jeremiah). Whether the order was the same as in the twenty-two book classification we do not know. Yet another piece of information comes from Melito of Sardis (second century AD). Eusebius cites a letter written by Melito in which he says that he visited Palestine and there took pains to ascertain for his correspondent ‘the accurate facts about the ancient writings, how many they are in number, and what is their order’. In the resultant list he places Ruth immediately after Judges.7
A further piece of evidence, not generally noticed, is the very old Hebrew-Aramaic list of the books of the Old Testament given in MS. 54 of the library of the Greek patriarchate in Jerusalem.8 This list, which Paul E. Kahle thinks ‘is possibly the oldest list available to us’,9 arranges the books of the Old Testament in a curious order. It begins: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Ruth, Job, Judges. For our purpose, the important thing is this further piece of early evidence that Ruth was not put among the Writings, but among the books reckoned as historical.
Lattey maintains that the first evidence for regarding Ruth as part of the Ketûbîm is not found until the time of Jerome, who mentions it, but who also speaks of the twenty-two book arrangement.10 This may not be taking seriously the point made, for example, by Rudolph,11 that the Targum of Jonathan (first century AD), which deals with the prophets, does not include Ruth and Lamentations, from which the conclusion is drawn that it must be reckoning them among the Ketûbîm. But this conclusion is obviously far from certain. And Jerome’s view is not lightly to be dismissed. He was not a casual visitor to Palestine, but lived there. And he was a learned Hebraist. He did not depend for his information on the LXX.
It is sometimes urged in favour of the view that the book is late that no good reason can be given for moving it from the historical books to the Ketûbîm, whereas the reverse process is easily understood. P. Katz, however, denies this. He points out that the arrangement in the earliest Hebrew selections of books varies, and that in any case it is bound up with ideas which are late. His argument that the order in the LXX is earlier than that in the Hebrew lists so far known to us is convincing. It should further be pointed out that those who maintain that no reason can be given for transferring the book from the historical books to the Ketûbîm overlook the fact that Ruth, in common with the other Megillôt, came to be used liturgically. The five were read at major festivals, so there was every reason for grouping them together. When this was done they had to be placed among the Ketûbîm, for three of them could by no stretch of imagination be classed among the historical books.12
There is a statement in the Talmud that the book of Ruth precedes Psalms (Baba Bathra, 14b). This may indicate a tradition that Ruth was of an earlier date than the Psalms. But on the other hand, it may be due to nothing more profound than a recognition that the subject matter of the book is early.
It is suggested by some that the writer of Ruth knew the Deuteronomic edition of Judges, and that he made use of a genealogy in a form used by the Priestly Code and by the author of Chronicles. But the former contention seems pure assertion. It is far from being proven. And the latter simply raises the question of who borrowed from whom. Lattey regards the argument from the genealogy as ‘a further example of the perverse treatment from which the book has suffered, that whereas the concluding genealogy ends with David, this has been seized upon as a proof, not that it was written in that reign, but that it came into being long afterwards … there is no valid reason for assuming that a genealogy cannot be early’.13
An argument from language is that the book is said to contain Aramaisms and words characteristic of late Hebrew. Examples cited are: nāśā nāšîm (1:4), lāhēn (1:13), the verb ‘āgan (1:13), mārā’ for mārâh (1:20), ‘ānâh bĕ (1:21), miqreh (2:3), ta‘ăbûrî (2:8), yiqṣōrûn (2:9), tidbāqîn (2:21), yāradty (3:3), šākābty (3:4), ta‘ăśîn (3:4), margĕlōt (3:7, 8, 14), tēdĕ‘în (3:18), pĕlōnî almōnî (4:1), qayyēm (4:7), šālap na‘ălô (4:7). Some find ṭrwm (3:14) an Aramaism, but Cassel thinks this unlikely, as the form is not found in Aramaic.14
Yet it should be noted that there are legitimate doubts about all this. In the first instance, not all scholars are sure that these forms are Aramaisms. F. I. Andersen says firmly, ‘Several of these words are pure old Canaanite.’ If this is so, the words are evidence for an early rather than a late date. Then in the second place, it is not clear that, even if genuine Aramaisms are present, they are late.15 Thus H. Gunkel says, ‘we cannot always deduce a late origin from an Aramaic expression, for, as Hans Bauer and Leander maintain, Hebrew was from the beginning a mixed language, and possessed Aramaic words from the first. The task of distinguishing Aramaic words which are to be found in the most ancient texts from those which were not introduced till later times, is a problem for the future. In the meantime it is only with the greatest reservation that we should draw the conclusion of a late origin from Aramaisms.’16 KD make the point that the alleged Aramaisms are found only in speeches, not in the author’s own narrative. The conclusion is that these forms were not the author’s own, but those of the time of the Judges.17 Wright points out that they ‘occur in all the books, and if such are sufficient to prove lateness of date, then we have no ancient Hebrew at all’.18 A remark of Myers also has relevance. On qayyēm in 4:7, he says, ‘several middle weak forms are found in the Piel in early documents … Since it is an explanatory insertion, an Aramaic borrowing would not affect the question of date of the original, but only that of its final prose edition.’19 An occasional late word may well be evidence of scribal activity rather than of a late date for the book as a whole. And in any case we must bear in mind that ‘the number of relatively late words is at best very small’.20 Rudolph points out that the number of ‘late’ words noted by earlier scholars has been drastically reduced in recent writing. Thus Joüon21 finds only four expressions typical of late speech, and Rudolph22 proceeds to show that none of these is necessarily late. The conclusion is inescapable that the language of the book as a whole does not prove a late date. Indeed, as far as the language is concerned, the indications are that the book is early. Only a very small number of words is cited for a late date, and, as we have seen, they do not prove it. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of words and constructions points to an early date, to a time when classical Hebrew was the norm. An early date is perhaps not proven beyond all doubt, but it is supported by the bulk of the evidence.
Some allege that the shoe custom described in Ruth 4 was obsolete when this chapter was written and that this indicates a late date. This argument is very weak. It depends on one verse (4:7), which could have been a gloss inserted at a later time. In any case, while the words point to a date later than that of the events described, they do not necessarily indicate a very late date. The writer knows the old custom, which may indicate that he lived near enough to the changeover to remember what the previous custom was. Again, almost exactly the same expression is found in 1 Samuel 9:9 in the passage explaining that formerly in Israel a prophet was called a ‘seer’. Yet no-one argues that this is convincing evidence for a very late date. A somewhat similar suggestion is that the author misunderstood the custom, which is given in its true form in Deuteronomy. But this is pure assumption. There is no contradiction with Deuteronomy, which describes what happens when a relation refuses to do his duty. Ruth 4 is concerned rather with how he transfers it with the consent of all concerned. See further my note on the passage (pp. 295ff., below). The Nuzi parallels there mentioned, and which date from c. 1500 BC, make it very difficult to hold to a late date.
Though the evidence for this late date is thus far from conclusive, most scholars hold that a date between 450 and 250 BC should be accepted. The earlier part of this period is favoured by those who think that the book was written to oppose the prohibition of mixed marriages in Nehemiah 13:23ff. On this Lattey comments, ‘The fresh and simple story is above suspicion of such sophisticated composition’.23 Those who think the book was written to oppose objections to the making of proselytes tend to date the work in the Greek period.
On the other hand, there are arguments for a much earlier date. Thus it is pointed out that the style and language are classic Hebrew and so point to early times. Learoyd thinks that ‘The literary and linguistic style of Ruth is far more like that of Samuel than that of late books like Chronicles’.24 Myers classes it with the JE narratives of the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings and says, ‘The simplicity of the story itself, the short but telling phrases and sentences employed as its vehicle, and the general impression created in the mind of the reader compel its classification with the early literature of Israel.’25 ‘In general, there are few constructions which cannot be paralleled in the earlier writings of the Hebrew Bible.’26
The language of this book contains some unusual forms, some of which appear to be early. Myers lists a number of archaic forms. He cites as especially noteworthy archaic forms tidbāqîn (2:8, 21), yiqṣōrûn (2:9), yiš’ăbûn (2:9), wĕyāradty (3:3), wĕšākābty (3:4), ta‘ăśîn (3:4), tēdĕ‘în (3:18), qānîtāy (4:5).27 He also lists śdy (1:1), tē‘ āgēnâh (1:13; Myers sees development from a primitive form28), ta‘ăbûrî (2:8)29, qnyty (4:5; confusion of genders and thus archaic 2f.s.).30 He cites ’ānōkî as occurring seven times with, ’ănî twice, a mark of early date.31
These forms are hard to explain in a late document. Cooke suggests that the author deliberately adopted certain older phrases to accord with the setting of his narrative.32 But this is to apply modern standards of verisimilitude. Writers in antiquity do not seem to have thought like this. But if the early forms are hard to account for in a late document, late forms in an early document are not so difficult, provided they are not the characteristic language of the book. For, as Myers points out, ‘all of the Hebrew Bible passed through the hands of Judean editors … This fact would at once indicate that the materials which they handled were made to conform at least in part to current Jerusalemite spelling standards.’33
On gender Myers points out that the confusion of gender found in Ruth is not characteristic of Hebrew, early or late. ‘It follows, probably, that it was a relatively early dialectical peculiarity, submerged by the later spread of standard grammatical forms.’34
On idiomatic expressions, Myers says, ‘The book of Ruth partakes of the regular idioms prevalent in the classical literature of Israel. While some of these idioms are current also in the later period of Hebrew literary development, a glance at the references cited above or a perusal of the concordance will demonstrate that they belong overwhelmingly to the early period.’35 ‘There is not a single linguistic feature of the book that cannot be explained satisfactorily on the basis of a later reduction to writing of a story perpetuated orally for centuries.’36
The narrative itself gives indications of early elements so that even those who think of a late date often suggest that parts of the book at any rate go back to a remote antiquity. Upholders of an early date suggest that the undoubtedly early elements carry the rest of the book (which after all is quite short) with them. Lattey, for example, says, ‘There is much in this story that points to an early date both for the facts and for the writing of them, and very little makes for a late date. The modern perspective in ancient history, and that not least in Palestine, makes the craze for later dating appear somewhat antiquated … we may reasonably ask that the evidence for the date should be weighed impartially, and that the work should not be assigned the latest date possible that is not positively ridiculous—if indeed even that limit is always observed.’37
There is also the fact that according to the Deuteronomic legislation Moabites were not permitted to enter the congregation. That the heroine was a Moabite points to a time like that of Judges when foreign wives were not so likely to be objected to. A post-exilic date has to be supported by making the book a counterblast to Ezra-Nehemiah.
Cassel argues from the tenderness shown to foreigners in David’s reign that the book must date from then. In addition to commending his parents to the care of the King of Moab in a time of crisis (1 Sam. 22:3), David remembered that the King of Ammon had shown him kindness (2 Sam. 10:2). His bodyguard included foreigners like Cherethites and Pelethites (2 Sam. 8:18). He lived for some time in Philistine Gath (1 Sam. 27). He attached to himself men like Uriah the Hittite (2 Sam. 11:3), and Zelek the Ammonite (2 Sam. 23:37). He deposited the Ark in the house of a Gittite (2 Sam. 6:10). At the time of Absalom’s rebellion he was given provisions by an Ammonite (2 Sam. 17:27), counsel by Hushai the Archite (2 Sam. 15:32ff.), and military support by Ittai the Gittite (2 Sam. 15:19ff.). ‘Never again, in the history of the ancient Israel, do such relations come to view.’
While this falls short of proof it should at least be considered. There is more to be said for a date in David’s reign than is commonly allowed.
The office of ‘kinsman’ (gō’ēl) is evidently early. Lattey sees it not yet ‘limited in actual practice to the law of the levirate’ and feels there is no evidence that the latter expanded in later times.38
The book is certainly later than the events it describes. Ruth 4 contains a clear indication that the custom of loosening the shoe had fallen out of use by the time the book was written and of course the book ends with a genealogy which takes us on to the time of David at least, though it is possible that this was added later than the rest of the book. But it is difficult to think of this as being penned at a very late date. David became the ideal king, the man after God’s own heart. It is not easy to think that when such ideas were held strongly a statement which ascribes to David a Moabite grandmother (and serves no other purpose) should be appended to a book which originally had nothing to do with him. This indicates that 4:17 at any rate was from the first a part of the book, and that it rests on a very old tradition.
A further argument is drawn from the general tone of the book. The narrative is serene and pleasant, not at all the sort of thing one would expect to find issuing from the life of the poverty-stricken and struggling post-exilic community. With this we might take the freshness of the narrative. It does not seem as though the main facts recorded have to do with a remote past. Indeed, the fact that the shoe custom is explained in Ruth 4, but nothing else is, shows that the rest of the narrative would have been quite familiar, i.e. the date must not be set too far from the facts recorded.
The inconclusiveness of the evidence, and the difficulty of dating the book, is shown by the wide variety of dates to which scholars have assigned it. Thus C. F. Keil and, more recently, J. E. Steinmueller see it as coming from the time of the early monarchy; S. R. Driver from the period between David and the exile; S. Davidson from the time of Hezekiah; H. Ewald, F. E. König and others from the exilic period; J. Wellhausen and others, including, more recently, P. Joüon, W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, and R. H. Pfeiffer, from the post-exilic period.39 W. Rudolph favours the period of the later monarchy40 and W. F. Albright ‘about the eighth century BC’.41
In view of the lack of firm evidence, it is impossible to be dogmatic. But the language, the acquaintance with early customs, and the general atmosphere of the book seem to show that a date during the early monarchy probably best satisfies the conditions. It is difficult to be more precise.