AUTHOR

The books of Judges and Ruth are treated together because the events of the book of Ruth took place during the time of the judges (Ru 1:1). Both books face challenges to their authenticity regarding matters of authorship, the dating of their writings, the possible addition of non-original material by later authors, and the purposes for their having been written.

Although neither book identifies its author, Jewish tradition (Baba Bathra 14b-15a) declares the prophet Samuel to have authored both books. Challenges to this view are at least threefold. (1) The books refer to the times of the judges as having taken place in distant memory (Jdg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25; Ru 1:1; 4:17,22). (2) The books take the time to explain past customs or events (Jdg 11:39; 14:10; 20:27-28; Ru 4:7). (3) The text says, “In those days there was no king in Israel,” seemingly writing from the perspective of a time when Israel had a king, and Samuel died before David reigned as king (Jdg 21:25; 1Sm 25:1). Those who reject the traditional view of Samuel as author typically favor as the author either King Solomon or an anonymous person who wrote the books during David’s reign.

Counterarguments to the three above, supporting Samuel as the author, include the following: (1) The time of the judges technically ceased with the ascension to the throne of Saul, who was anointed king by Samuel (1Sm 10:1; 11:14-15). Thus Samuel could easily have written these books after the time of the judges. (2) Sufficient time had passed between the actual events or customs and the recording of those events or customs for memories to have faded and certain customs to have fallen out of vogue; hence, the need for explanations for later generations of readers. (3) The references to a king in general in the book of Judges (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), and the references to David in particular in the book of Ruth (Ru 4:17,22), fit acceptably within Samuel’s life span since he saw the coronation of Saul and later anointed David as king.

Whichever view of authorship is correct (i.e., Samuel, Solomon, or an anonymous author), each easily accounts for any concern regarding the possible addition of materials at the end of either book.

THE RELIABILITY OF JUDGES AND RUTH

Controversy surrounds the books of Judges and Ruth. Even a cursory reading of these books causes many to question the validity of their inclusion in the Scripture, the content being deemed by some as unworthy of God or of little or no value to twenty-first-century readers. These books include: (1) graphic depictions of violence (such as the slaughter of seemingly innocent people by the command of God, maiming, human sacrifice, and gloating over the deaths of one’s enemies); (2) heroes who are anything but role models (while seemingly under the control of the Holy Spirit, they engage in deceit, lies, mockery, and self-centered behavior); (3) illicit sex and sexual innuendo; (4) a degrading depiction of women; and (5) a writing style that seemingly includes exaggeration or fabrication.

The inclusion of certain statements at the end of each of the books dramatically alters how we are to understand the purpose of each book. In Judges the author declared that in the times about which he was writing “there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). In Ruth, the author presented genealogical records that include the name of King David, a king who lived during the post-judges era (Ru 4:17,22). Thus, rather than being merely guidelines for how to live during difficult times, both books appear to be defending one of two views: (1) living during the present age of the kings was better than living in the previous age of the judges (cp. the book of Judges); or (2) despite coming from an insignificant, non-royal family (see 1Sm 16:1,13; 18:18), David had an excellent heritage, arising from godly grandparents of a family in the messianic line.

Regarding the controversial matters of the content, a closer reading of the text reveals that, by being written as straightforward accounts, the books display a higher degree of credibility than if they presented sanitized histories. Neither book attempts to gloss over any of the sins, foolishness, or errors of the people described in them. Despite conclusions skeptics might draw from a cursory assessment of the texts, the books themselves never place blame for sin, foolishness, or error on God. God was not guilty and the so-called innocent were, in fact, not innocent at all. Instead they deserved judgment.

The events and customs fit precisely into the story lines of their respective books and align well with what is known from ancient sources of information outside the Bible. The stories may not make us feel comfortable, but these books were not designed to comfort. These two books together present hard-hitting truth designed to disturb, to inform, and to challenge.