The specific reasons that are adduced in favour of the application of the postponing theory to the particular Book of Ruth are not to us of much or very weighty significance. One is that there are some coincidences of expres- sion discoverable in Ruth, on the one hand, and in the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings on the other. These coincidences, it is contended, are evidences that the writer of the Book of Ruth must have been acquainted with the Books of Samuel and Kings. For instance, it is said in Ruth i. 17, "May Yahveh do so to me, and more also, if," &c.; and the same formula is found in 1 Sam. iii. 17; 1 Kings ii. 23; xx. 10; 2 Kings vi. 31. Again, it is said in Ruth i. 19, "the whole city got into commotion;" and the same expres- sion occurs in 1 Kings i. 45, where it is rendered in King James's version, "the city rang again." Then in Ruth iv. 4 we read, "I will uncover thine ear" (so as to give thee information) ; and in 1 Sam. xxii. 8, and elsewhere, it is written, "There is none that uncovereth mine ear" (to inform me). Ewald thinks that "we distinctly hear an echo from the Book of Job, not merely in the general style, but even in some single words and phrases" (' Geschichte,' vol. i. p. 155). He instances Job x.xvii. 2, where the simple name "(the) Almighty" is used instead of the complex name "God Almighty" (see Gen. xvii. 1, &c.). Ewald thinks that this shorter form of the name "was evidently rendered possible" in Ruth i. 20 "only through the grand example of the Book of Job." He would infer, therefore, on the one hand, that the writer of the Book of Ruth was familiar with the Book of Job, and he assumes, on the other, that the Book of Job belongs to a late period of literary activity. With the assumption we have here nothing to do. But his inference in reference to the age of the Book of Ruth, and the concurrent inference that is deduced by the advocates in general of exilic or post-exilic origination, from those coincidences of expression of which we have made mention, are surely extremely precarious, or rather abso- lutely baseless. The simple name "(the) Almighty" occurs not only again and again in Job, but likewise in Gen. xlix. 25, and also in Num. xxiv. 4, 16. If the writer of the story of Ruth must needs be held as borrowing, why might he not have borrowed from Genesis and Numbers in place of Job. And is not the whole argument reversible 1 Why not infer from coincidences of expression that the writers of the Books of Samuel and Kings borrowed from the Book of Ruth 1 And, besides, what is to hinder us from supposing that all of the expressions specified lived and moved and had their being for generations a:l part and parcel of the common idioms of the country, so that various writers of various ages might at pleasure make use of them as constituent elements of the unappropriated language of the people 1 Peculiar expressions, like peculiar single words, have their lifetime in a people's language. They are born, they grow, they culminate, they wane, grow old, drop off, and are buried. ·why might not all the expressions referred to by the critics of the Book of Ruth be "living" at all the successive epochs doing which the writers themselves xii INTRODUCTION TO
were living, from whose writings the coincident words and phrases have been culled 1 Ewald thought that he detected evidence of late exilic composition not merely in the echoes of earlier books, but likewise in the " antiquarian lore" that is characteristic of the writer. He refers in particular to the statement that is made in the fourth chapter, in reference to the antique custom of ta.king off a shoe, and presenting it to the contracting party, when rights of property were surrendered (see ver. 7). He thought, moreover, that such a custom, unearthed by successful antiquarian research, "could only have ceased with the n.ational existence" (' Geschichte,' ut sup.). The argument is thus twofold. I. One branch of it consists in the evidence of successful antiquarian research. , .2. Another resolves itself into the peculiarity of the custom itself. It was of such a nature, and manifestly so tenacious of life, that it could not have come to an end so long as the Lational existence continued. But surely both of these branches of argumentation are insufficient to carry much weight, or even any weight at all. One might know that a peculiar custom once prevailed, and yet be undistinguished for extensive and accurate "antiquarian lore." The word-of-mouth tradition that sufficed to convey to the writer of the Book of Ruth the actions, and conversations, and remarks of Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz respectively, would likewise suffice to be the vehicle of information regarding the old-fashioned symbolism that was observed when certain legal rights were readjusted. .And is it not a matter of well-known fact that legal symbolisms, connected with the transfer of rights of property, have changed in various nations whose national existence remains intact1 In some nations, for instance, the delivery of land symbolically by the delivery of earth and stones of the land, or other representative elements, though not so very long ago a binding formality, has now ceased to be imperative, or even customary. If there is to be evidence of the exilic or post-exilic composition of the Book of Ruth, it must be found elsewhere. Some have supposed that this evidence is found in several Chaldaisms of expression. In eh. i. 13, 20; ii. 8, 9, 21 ; iii. 3, 4; iv. 7, there are certainly some peculiar forms of words. Sanctius supposed that they might be Moabit- isms. Dereser conjectured that they might be Bethlehemitish provincialisms. They remind one undoubtedly of forms that are common in Chaldee. But it is at the same time to be borne in mind that there were no hard and fast lines separating, in the olden times, between the various members of the Semitio group of languages. They overlapped one another in various details ; and .as originally the fathers of the affiliated nations literally lived in one home, so, even after long periods of distinctive linguistic evolution, there were floating about in wavincr lines of mutual intercourse expressions that were in some cases E<urvi;als of ori;inal unity, and in others th~ direct result of subsequent familiar cCJL.tact. One thing is evident, that the Hebrew which is found in the Ilooks THE BOOK OF RUTli. .<iii