RUTH Book of. The story of Ruth, the Moabitess, great-grandmother of David, one of the Old Testament Hagiographa, is usually reckoned as the second of the five Megilloth or Festal Rolls. This position corresponds to the Jewish practice of reading the book at the Feast of Pentecost; Spanish MSS., however, place Ruth at the head of the Megilloth (see Canticles); and the Talmud, in a well-known passage of Baba Bathra, gives it the first place among all the Hagiographa. On the other hand the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the English version make Ruth follow Judges. It has sometimes been held that this was its original place in the Hebrew Bible also, or rather that Ruth was originally reckoned as an appendix to Judges, since it is only by doing this, and also by reckoning Lamentations to Jeremiah, that all the books of the Hebrew canon can be reduced to twenty-two, the number assigned by Josephus and other ancient authorities. But it has been shown in the article Lamentations (q.v.) that the argument for the superior antiquity of this way of reckoning breaks down on closer examination, and, while it was very natural that a later rearrangement should transfer Ruth from the Hagiographa to the historical books, and place it between Judges and Samuel, no motive can be suggested for the opposite change. That the book of Ruth did not originally form part of the series of Prophetae priores (Judges-Kings) is further probable from the fact that it is quite untouched by the process of “prophetic” or “Deuteronomistic” editing, which gave that series its present shape at a time soon after the fall of the kingdom of Judah; the narrative has no affinity with the point of view which looks on the whole history of Israel as a series of examples of divine justice and mercy in the ...successive rebellions and repentances of the people of God. But if the book had been known at the time when the history from Judges to Kings was edited, it could hardly have been excluded from the collection; the ancestry of David was of greater interest than that of Saul, which is given in 1 Sam. ix. 1, whereas the old history names no ancestor of David beyond his father Jesse. In truth the book of Ruth does not offer itself as a document written soon after the period to which it refers; it presents itself as dealing with times far back (Ruth i. 1), and takes obvious delight in depicting details of antique life and obsolete usages; it views the rude and stormy period before the institution of the kingship through the softening atmosphere of time, which imparts to the scene a gentle sweetness very different from the harsher colours of the old narratives of the book of Judges. In the language, too, there is a good deal that makes for and nothing that makes against a date subsequent to the captivity, and the very designation of a period of Hebrew history as “the days of the judges” is based on the Deuteronomistic additions to the book of Judges (ii. 16 sq.) and does not occur till the period of the exile. An inferior limit for the date of the book cannot be assigned with precision. It has been argued that, as the author seems to take no offence at the marriage of Israelites with Moabite women, he must have lived before the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra ix.; Neh. xiii.); but the same argument would prove that the book of Esther was written before Ezra, and indeed “a disposition to derive prominent Jewish families from proselytes prevailed to a much later date,” and finds expression in the Talmud (see Wellhausen-Bleek, p. 205). The language of Ruth, however, though post-classical, does not seem to place it among the very latest Old Testament books, and the manner in which the story is told is as remote from the legal pragmatism of Chronicles as from the prophetic pragmatism of the editor of the older histories. The tone of simple piety and graciousness which runs through the narrative, unencumbered by the pedantry of Jewish legality, seems to indicate that the book was written before all the living impulses of Jewish literature were choked by the growing influence of the doctors of the law. In this respect it holds in Hebrew prose writing a position analogous to that of the older Chokma in Hebrew poetry. But the triumph of the scribes in literature as well as in law was not accomplished till long after the time of Ezra.
Wellhausen in Bleek, 4th edition, p. 204 sq., finds the clearest indication of the date of Ruth in the appended genealogy, Ruth iv. 18-22; compare his remarks in Prol. GescK Israels, p. 227 (Eng. tr., pp. 217 sq.). Salma (Salmon), father of Boaz, is a tribe foreign to old Judah, which was not “father” of Bethlehem till after the exile, and the names of Salma’s ancestors are also open to criticism. But this genealogy is also found in Chronicles, and is quite in the manner of other genealogies in the same book. That it was borrowed from Chronicles and added to Ruth by a later hand seems 'certain, for the author of Ruth clearly recognizes that Obed was legally the son of Mahlon, not of Boaz (iv. 5, 10), so that from his standpoint the appended genealogy is all wrong.
The design of the book of Ruth has been much discussed and often in too narrow a spirit; for the author is an artist who takes manifest delight in the touching and graceful details of his picture, and is not simply guided by a design to impart historical information about David’s ancestors, or enforce some particular lesson. Now the interest of the story, as a work of art, culminates in the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, not in the fact that their son was David’s ancestor, which, if the book originally ended with iv. 17, is only mentioned in a cursory way at the close of the story. Had the author’s main design been to illustrate the history of the house of David, as many critics think, or to make the point that the noblest stock in Israel was sprung from an alien mother (Wellhausen), this design would certainly have been brought into more prominence. The marriage acquires an additional interest when we know that Ruth was David’s great-grandmother, but the main interest is independent of that, and lies in the happy issue of Ruth and Naomi from their troubles through the loyal performance of the kinsman’s part by Boaz. Doubtless the writer meant his story to be an example to his own age, as well as an interesting sketch of the past; but this is effected simply by describing the exemplary conduct of Naomi, Ruth, Boaz, and even Boaz’s harvesters. All these act as simple, kindly, God-fearing people ought to act in Israel.
There is one antique custom which the writer follows with peculiar interest and describes with archaeological detail as a thing which had evidently gone out of use in his own day. By old Hebrew law, as by the old law of Arabia, a wife who had been brought into her husband’s house by contract and payment of a price to her father was not set free by the death of her husband to marry again at will. The right to her hand lay with the nearest heir of the dead. Originally we must suppose, among the Hebrews as among the Arabs, this law was all to the disadvantage of the widow, whose hand was simply part of the dead man’s estate; but, while this remained so in Arabia to the time of Mohammed, among the Hebrews the law early took quite an opposite turn; the widow of a man who died childless was held to have a right to have a son begotten on her by the next kinsman, and this son was regarded as the sou of the dead and succeeded to his inheritance so that his name might not be cut off from Israel. The duty of raising up a son to the dead lay upon his brother, and in Deut. xxv. 5 is restricted to the case when brothers live together. In old times, as appears from Gen. xxxviii., this was not so, and the law as put in the book of Ruth appears to be that the nearest kinsman of the dead in general had a right to “redeem for himself” the dead man’s estate, but at the same time was bound to marry the widow. The son of this marriage was reckoned as the dead man’s son and succeeded to his property, so that the “redeemer” had only a temporary usufruct in it. Naomi was too old to be married in this way, but she had certain rights over her husband’s estate which the next kinsman had to buy up before he could enter on the property. And this he was willing to do, but he was not willing also to marry Ruth and beget on her a son who would take the name and estate of the dead and leave him out of pocket. He therefore withdraws and Boaz comes in in his place. That this is the sense of the transaction is clear; there is, however, a little obscurity in iv. 5, where one letter seems to have fallen out and we must read on ונםאתיות and translate “What day thou buyest the field from Naomi thou must also buy Ruth,” &c. Comp. vv. 9, 10.
Among older commentaries special mention may be made of J. B. Carpzov, Collegium rabbinico-biblicum in Iibellum Ruth, Leipsic, 1703. In recent times Ruth has usually been taken up by commentators along with Judges q.v.). ( w ∙ r ∙ s ∙)
The book of Ruth is so called from the name of the person, a native of Moab, whose history it contains. It may be considered as a supplement to the book of Judges, to which it was joined in the Hebrew canon, and the latter part of which it greatly resembles, being a detached story belonging to the same period. Ruth had a son called Obed, who was the grandfather of David, which circumstance probably occasioned her history to be written, as the genealogy of David, from Pharez, the son of Judah, from whom the Messiah was to spring, is here given; and some commentators have thought, that the descent of our Saviour from Ruth, a Gentile woman, was an intimation of the comprehensive nature of the Christian dispensation. We are no where informed when Ruth lived; but as King David was her great-grandson, we may place her history about B. C. 1250. This book was certainly written after the birth of David, and probably by the Prophet Samuel, though some have attributed it to Hezekiah, and others to Ezra. The story related in this book is extremely interesting; the widowed distress of Naomi, her affectionate concern for her daughters, the reluctant departure of Orpah, the dutiful attachment of Ruth, and the sorrowful return to Bethlehem, are very beautifully told. The simplicity of manners, likewise, which is shown in Ruth’s industry and attention to Naomi; the elegant charity of Boaz; and his acknowledgment of his kindred with Ruth, afford a pleasing contrast to the turbulent scenes described in the book of the Judges. The respect, likewise, which the Israelites paid to the law of Moses, and their observance of ancient customs, are represented in a very lively and animated manner, Ruth iv. It is a pleasing digression from the general thread of the sacred history.
RUTHENIANS. See Slavs. For Ruthenian (Little Russian) literature, see Russia.
RUTHENIUM. See Platinum.
RUTHERFURD or Rutherford, Samuel (1600-1661), Scottish divine, was born about 1600 at the village of Nisbet in Roxburghshire. He is supposed to have received his early education at Jedburgh, and he entered the university of Edinburgh in 1617. He graduated M.A. in 1621, and two years afterwards was elected professor of humanity. On account of some alleged indiscretion or irregularity connected with his marriage in 1625, he resigned his professorship in that year, but, after studying theology, he was in 1627 appointed minister of An-woth, Kirkcudbrightshire, where he displayed remarkable diligence and zeal, alike as preacher, pastor, and student, and soon took a leading place among the clergy of Galloway. In 1636 his first book, entitled Exerdtationes de Gratia —an elaborate treatise against Arminianism—appeared at Amsterdam, and attracted some attention both in Great Britain and on the Continent. Combined with his strict and non-conforming presbyterianism, the severe Calvinism set forth in this work led to a prosecution by the new bishop of the diocese, Sydserff, in the High Commission Court, first at Wigtown and afterwards at Edinburgh, with the result that Rutherfurd was deposed from his pastoral office, and sentenced to confinement in Aberdeen during the king’s pleasure. His banishment lasted from September 1636 to February 1638, and was chiefly remarkable for the epistolary activity he displayed, the greater number of his published Letters belonging to this period of his life. He was present at the signing of the Covenant in Edinburgh in 1638, and afterwards at the meeting of the Glasgow Assembly the same year, which restored him to his parish. In 1639 he was appointed professor of divinity in St Mary’s College, St Andrews, and shortly afterwards became ...colleague to Robert Blair in the church of St Andrews. He was sent up to London in 1643 as one of the eight commissioners from Scotland to the Westminster Assembly. Arriving along with Baillie in November, and remaining at his post over three years, he did great service to the cause of his party. In 1642 he had published his Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presby-tede in Scotland, and the sequel to it in 1644 on The Due Right of Presbyteries provoked Milton's contemptuous reference to “mere A. S. and Rutherfurd” in his sonnet On the New Forcers of Consdence under the Long Parliament. In 1644 also appeared Rutherfurd’s Lex Rex, a Dispute for the Just Prerogative of King and People, which gives him a recognized place among the early writers on constitutional law; it was followed by The Divine Right of Church Government (1646), and Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience (1649). Among his other works are the Tryal and Triumph of Faith (1645), Chdst Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself (1647), and Survey of the Spirtual Antichrist (1648). In 1647 he returned to St Andrews to become principal of the New College there, and in 1648 and 1651 he declined successive invitations to theological chairs at Harderwijk and Utrecht. His last days were assailed by the persecution which followed the
Restoration in 1660. His Lex Rex was ordered to be burned at the cross of Edinburgh, and also at the gate of the college. He was deprived of all his offices, and on a charge of high treason was cited to appear before the ensuing parliament. His health, however, now utterly broke down, and knowing that he had not long to live he drew up, on 26th February 1661, a Testimony, which was posthumously published. He died on the 20th of the following March.
The fame of Rutherfurd now rests principally upon his remarkable Letters, on which Wodrow thus comments:—“He seems to have outdone even himself as w τ ell as everybody else in his admirable and every way singular letters, which, though jested upon by profane wits because of some familiar expressions, yet will be owned of all who have any relish of piety to contain such sublime flights of devotion and to be fraughted with such massy thoughts as loudly speak a soul united to Jesus Christ in the closest embraces, and must needs at once ravish and edify every serious reader.” In addition to the other works already mentioned, Rutherfurd published in 1651 a treatise De Divina Provulentia, against Molinism, Socinianism, and Arminianism, of which Richard Baxter, not without justice, remarked that “as the Letters were the best piece so this was the worst he had ever read.”
The Letters, to the number of 215, were first published anonymously by M ’ Ward, an amanuensis, at Rotterdam, in 1664. They have been frequently reprinted, the best edition (365 letters) being that by Rev. A. A. Bonar, 1848, with a sketch of his life. See also a short Life by Rev. Dr Andrew Thomson, 1884.
RUTHERGLEN an ancient royal burgh of Lanarkshire, Scotland, is situated near the left bank of the Clyde, 2 miles south-east of Glasgow. It consists chiefly of one long wide irregular street, with narrow streets, wynds, and alleys branching from it at intervals. The parish church is situated near the centre of the town, a little distance from the tower of the old church where the treaty was made in 1297 with Edward I., by which Sir John Mon-teith agreed with the English to betray the Scottish hero Wallace. The most important public building is the town-hall, a handsome structure with a large square tower. In the vicinity there are extensive collieries and ironworks, and the town possesses chemical works, a paper mill, a pottery, and a shipbuilding yard. The corporation consists of a provost, two bailies, a dean of guild, a treasurer, and fifteen councillors. The population of the royal burgh in 1871 was 9239, and in 1881 it was 11,473.
Rutherglen was erected into a royal burgh by King David in 1126. At this time it included a portion of Glasgow, but in 1226 the boundaries were rectified so as to exclude the whole of that city. In early times it had a castle, which was taken by Bruce from the English in 1313. It was kept in good repair till after the battle of Langside it was burnt by order of the regent Murray. After this the town for a time gradually decayed, the trade being absorbed by Glasgow. Rutherglen is included in the Kilmarnock district of parliamentary burghs.
