RUTH, BOOK OF, is inserted in the canon, according to the English arrangement, between the book of Judges and the books of Samuel, as a sequel to the former and an introduction to the latter. Among the ancient Jews it was added to the book of Judges, because the transactions which it relates happened in the time of the judges of Israel (Ruth i. r). Several of the ancient Fathers, moreover, make but one book of Judges and Ruth. But the modern Jews commonly place in their Bibles, after the Pentateuch, the five Megil loth—r. The Song of Solomon ; 2. Ruth ; 3. The Lamentations of Jeremiah ; 4. Ecclesiastes ; 5. Esther. Sometimes Ruth is placed the first of these, sometimes the second, and sometimes the fifth.
The true date and authorship of the book are alike unknown. The Talmud (Baba Bathra, f. 14. 2) ascribes it to Samuel ; and to this most have assented. It is, however, unsupported by any evidence beyond that of late traditions. That it was written at a time considerably remote front the events it records, would appear from the passage in ch. iv. 7, which explains a custom referred to as having been the manner in for mer time in Israel concerning redeeming and con cerning changing' (comp. Dent. xxv. 9). That it was written, also, at least as late as the establish ment of David's house upon the throne, appears from the concluding verse—` And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.' The expression, moreover (ch. i. I), when the judges ruled,' marking the period of the occurrence of the events, indicates, no doubt, that in the writer's days kings bad already begun to reign. Add to this what critics have considered as certain Chaldaisms with which the language is interspersed, denoting its composition at a period considerably later than that of the events themselves. Thus Eichhorn finds a Chaklaism or Syriasm in the use of ti for rl in Nin, though the same form occurs elsewhere. He adverts also to the existence of a superfluous Yoa' in +nnvi4 and +n-ro (iii. 3), and ,nnnvi (ver. 4). As, however, the language is in other re spects, in the main, pure, these few Chaldaisms may have arisen from a slight error of the copyists, and therefore can scarcely be alleged as having any special bearing, on the era of tbe document. The same remark is to be made of certain idio matic phrases and forms of expression which occur elsewhere only in the books of Samuel and of Kings, as--` The Lord do so to me, and more also' (Ruth i. 17 ; comp. I Sam. iii. 17 ; xiv. 44; xx. 13 ; 2 Sam. iii. 9, 35 ; xix. 13 ; Kings ii. 23 ; xix. 2 ; XX. 10 ; 2 Kings vi. 31) ; I have dis covered to your ear,' for I have told you' (Ruth iv. 4 ; comp. I Sam. xx. 2 ; SaIll. Vii. 27).
Ewald (Gesch., 2o7) and 13ertheau (Exeget. Hdb., Lief. vi.) would place the writing of the work in the time of or after the captivity ; but for so late a date there is no ground.
The canonical authority of Ruth has never been questioned, a sufficient confirmation of it being found in the fact that Ruth the Moabitess comes into the genealogy of the Saviour, as distinctly given by the Evangelist (Matt. i. 6). The prin cipal difficulty in regard to the book arises, how ever, from this very genealogy, in which it is stated that Boaz, who was the husband of Ruth, and the great-grandfather of David, vvas the son of Salmon by Rachab. Now, if by Rachab we sup pose to be meant, as is usually understood, Raliab the harlot who protected the spies, it is not easy to conceive that only three persons—Boaz, Obed, and Jesse—should have intervened between her and David, a period of near 400 years. But the solu tion of Usher is not improbable, that the ancestors of David, as persons of pre-eminent piety, were favoured with extraordinary longevity. Or it may be that the sacred writers have mentioned in the genealogy only such names as were distinguished and known among the Jews.
The leading scope of the book has been variously understood by different commentators. Umbreit (Ueber Geist und Zzoeck des Ruches Ruths, in Theo!. Stud. u nd Krit. for 1S34, p. 308) thinks it was written with the specific moral design of showing how even a stranger, and that of the hated Moabitish stock, might be sufficiently noble to become the mother of the great king David, be cause she placed her reliance on the God of Israel.
Berth°ldt regards the history as a pure fiction, de signed to recommend the duty of a man to marry his kinswoman ; while Eichhorn conceives that it was composed mainly in honour of the house of David, though it does not conceal the poverty of the family. The more probable design we think to be to pre-intimate, by the recorded adoption of a Gentile woman into the family from which Christ was to derive his origin, the final reception of the Gentile nations into the true church, as fellow-heirs of the salvation of the Gospel. The moral lessons which it incidentally teaches are of the most interesting and touching character : that private families are as much the objects of divine regard as the houses of princes ; that the present life is a life of calamitous changes ; that a devout trust in an overruling Providence will never fail of its reward ; and that no condition, however adverse or afflicted, is absolutely hopeless, are truths that were never more strikingly illustrated than in the brief and simple narrative before us.—G. B.