§ 4. DATE OF COMPOSITION. There is not the least likelihood that the little Book could have been written just immediately after the occurrence of the events narrated. For, in the first place, the write,, in the very opening sentence of the Book, comes down beyond the age of the Judges. He speaks of what came to pass "in the days when the Judges judged." It is implied that these days were, by his time, at some considerable distance in the past. Then, in the second place, he speaks in eh. iv. of a custom that "in former time" obtained in Israel in refer- ence to important transactions, involving the transfer of property, or the surrender of property-rights, which custom was observed by Boaz and his kins- man. At the time when the writer lived the custom had become obsolete, so that a considerable period must have elapsed between the date of the events narrated and the date of the narrative- of them in the Book of Ruth. Then, in the third place, the genealogy at the close of the Book is carried down to David, and thus far beyond the time "when the Judges judged." It might be said indeed that the genealogical appendix may have been added by a later hand. True; it may. And if it should ever be proved that it has been, then all the logical effects involved in the proof will be willingly con- ceded. Until, however, the desiderated proof be forthcoming, we may be excused for accepting the Book in its integrity. No opinion, on the whole, wears a greater aspect of verisimilitude than that which assigns the composition of the Book to the reign of King David. That epoch was among the Hebrews a literary age. The king himself was a man of letters. He would draw literary men around his throne. He was a man, besides, of deep human sympathies ; and thus he would no doubt be intensely interested in the Moabitish incident. He would be master of all its details. 'They had come down to him only through a very limited succession of remem- brancers. "Boaz begat Obed; Obed begat Jesse; and Jesse begat David." No wonder that even the conversations and the salient sayings of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz should have been sharply imprinted on the brief succession of memories. King David, moreover, was free from many narrownesses of spirit that belittle multitudes of other minds. He recognised the gracious relationship of the God of Israel to all the families of the earth. He believed that there was a. tide of goodness and tender mercy flowing from the inexhaustible depths of the Divine heart to all nations and peoples, even to the uttermos~ parts o-f the earth. Hence he would not be ashamed of the nioabitish link in his genealogy. Ho would bo proud of it, and all iho more, i~ is likely, uccaus\l at a J: INTRODUCTION TO
peculiarly critical period of his own history he had been on tm·ms of amity, intimacy, and confidence with the co~emporary king of Moab. At the time 'IVhen he had to flee for his life from the presence of Saul, and take refuge in the ca,e of Adullam, it is said, in 1 Sam. xxii. 3, 4, that he went to Mizpeh of Moab, "and said unto the king of Moab, Let my father and my mother, I pray thee, come forth, and be with you, till I know what God will do for me. And he brought them before the king of l\foab : and they dwelt with him all the while that David was in the hold." It would not be doing violence to veri- similitude were we to suppose that, in David's communication with the king of Moab, he made mention of the Moabitish link in his genealogy, and of the incidents connected with it. If Ruth, an ancestor of his own, had been hospit- ably received in Judah, would it be asking too much if the grandson of that ancestor might, with his wife, be hospitably received for a season in Moab 1 No other time, it would appear, can be fixed upon as furnishing a more likely date for the composition and publication of the Book. Not an earlier time; for the custom of pulling off a shoe and giving it to the contracting party was observed in the days of Boaz, but had gone into desuetude at the date of the Book's publication. It could scarcely have died out much sooner than in two or three generations. Not a later time ; for the minute incidents recorded, and the minute con- versations and observations reported- a.ll of them apparently unfictitious- would, if unpublished, have faded from the memories of the personages princi- pally concerned. Then the genealogy, at the close of the fourth chapter, is carried down to King David, and, stops there. Why should it stop there, and by stopping at that particular stage suggest and indicate a particular date 1 Had the writer some polit~cal object in view that required a false date to be given to his publication 1 There is no trace of such a motif. Had he some distinctively theocratic object in view that could be best subserved in his judgment by indi- cating a false date 1 There is no evidence of such a motif. Had he then some literary object in view that might be furthered by a fabrication, in the colophon, of the date of composition 1 There is not the slightest evidence of the presence in his mind of such a motif. Ewald, indeed, and Bertheau, fo.iowing other critics of earlier date, and having themselves many followere of later date, conjecture that the Book is not nearly so old. They would ascribe it to the exilic epoch. Bertholdt asks if it should not be ascribed to the post-exilic epoch.• Thie, their conjecture of postponement to a date far removed from the time of King David, is based for the most part on considerations that have to do generically with a large propor- tion of the Old Testament writings. It is hence a question which, falling to be discuBBed on its own wide arena, is, to a large extent, ruled out of this apecific Introduction. • "Ob ea vielleicht gar in die ZeiteD nach d~m fail gehort." § 'i53. 'l'HE BOOK OF RUTH. Ii