when the Lord of glory humbled himself to become the "kinsman" and the "friend" of those whose name is" sinners." But in the genealogy that is appended to the Book of Ruth, the succession is carried no further down than to Ring David. The genealogy is thus, so far as the discoverable aim of the genealogist is concerned, rather Davidic than Messianic. The interest in it that was manifestly felt by the writer, and that may have been extensively felt by his cotemporaries, was an interest that gathered round "great David" himself, rather than " great David's greater Son." Yet it seems preposterous to assume that the whole graphic story of Ruth was composed simply in consequence of this genealogical interest. The assump- tion looks like an inversion of the natural, and the substitution in its place of the unnatural. Why not rather suppose that the writer wrote just because he was charmed with the facts of Ruth's character, and because he rejoiced over the reward with which, in the providence of God, the heroine's devotedness was so signally crowned i Why not accept the narrative of the Book as being simply what it appears to be i Why not suppose that the writer may have simply sought to reproduce, in the literature of words, the delineation of character and reward that had already been so charmingly executed in the literature of facts i Why hesitate to assume that he may have undertaken his task in the spirit of literary spontaneity, feeling a wide sympathy in his heart, seeing a meaning in every- thing, and resting assured that there must be a very peculiar meaning and lesson in all those things that are the outcome of noble effort, noble endurance, and noble love. The writer must, we conceive, have been, though perhaps unconsciously, and in a comparatively limited sphere of activity, a true Wterateur. He loved literature for its own sake, and had a true appreciation of its mission and responsibilities. Hence, though a Hebrew, he did not turn aside his eyes and his heart from beholding and admiring fads full of interest, and instruction, because they occurred in connection with an alien race. Nor did he make apologies for :finding excellences in Gentiles, and recording them with vivid zest and delight. There is a noteworthy absence of Hebrew bigotry in the spirit of the Book. The title which is given to his commentary on the book by Richard Bernard," another of the Puritan expositors, brings out admirably what appears to have been the aim of the Hebrew writer-' RuTH's RECOMPENSE.'
§ 3. THE BooK's LITERARY CHARACTER. The Book of Ruth is not a history ; nor is it a biography. It is only :-i little biographical episode in a history. It is a story; but, without uoubt, i1 tri,e story. INTRODUCTION TO
True 1 How is that evinced 1 What is there even to suggest the sto1·y' objective truthfulness or authenticity 1 Much. The Book comes before us as a narrative of facts ; and, although making no parade of its veracity, it hns, in its own inimitable simplicity and crystalline transparency, all the appearance of being an honest representation ;nf objective realities. The material of the story, moreover, is of such a nature that its unreality, if it had not been honest, would at once have been detected and exposed. The stuff out of which the story is woven consisted, so to speak, of very sensitive filaments. It had to do with the genealogy of the royal family. The principal personages in the story were the ancestors of King David. That there was a Moabitish link in the chain of his genealogy must have been well known to the king himself, and to all his household, and to a large proportion of the people of Israel in general. It must likewise have been well known that this M:oabitish link did not lie far back in the line. The existence of such a link was too great a peculiarity to be treated with indifference. We cannot doubt that the whole history of the case would be a frequent topic of narration, conversation, and comment at once within and around the royal court. The probability, therefore, is, that the writer would be careful to do no violence to the facts of the case. Any alloy of fiction or romance on such a subject would have been at once resented, alike by the royal family and by the great body of the people, the devoted admirers of the king. It is, hence, one should suppose, in a mood of literary waywardness that Bertholdt contends that the Book is not a narrative of facts, but merely a "his- torical fiction "-a family picture painted on a eanvas ofromance.* The writer, he alleges, h<J.S himself betrayed the fact of his work's fictitiousness. " He forgot himself for once," he says.t For although, according to one part of his story, he represents Naomi, with her husband and sons, as reduced to such extremity of poverty that they required to abandon their mortgaged property and take refuge in Moab ; yet, in utter forgetfulness of this representation, he introduces Naomi, at a later stage of the story, as saying to the matrons in Bethlehem that "she went out full, and came back empty." A mere romance writer, Bertholdt alleges, might easily run into such a contradiction, and care nothing about it ; but a narrator of actual facts would speedily have detected the blunder, and have got, it rectified. The blUD.der ! It is demonstrably Bertholdt's own. He has, in fact, committed a double blunder. (1) He has misunderstood what is said of the condition of the family before their departure, and (2) he has likewise mis- apprehended what Naomi said after her return. The family is not represented as reduced to absolute destitution before their emigration; there waa abundance of scope for much further descent. And, on the other hand, there ia not an • Section 551 of the 'Einleitung' is entitled "Dns Jluch enthiilt reinc Dichtung."' t '' D~r Yerfaeser hat sicb einm&l vergesscn." THE BOOK OF RUTH.
11tom of evidence to establish the objector's conjecture, that, when Naomi after her return referred to her ' fulness' before her departure, she had simply her fina.ncia.l condition in view.