What do you think?
Rate this book
In recent years, students, scholars, and lay readers of the Bible have been increasingly drawn to the book of Ruth. Delving deeply into the complicated nature of its characters’ relationships, Jeremy Schipper encourages readers to consider the roles that categories of difference involving gender, disability, household status, ethnicity, and sexual desire play throughout the text. This fresh translation of the deceptively simple book is more literal and less idiosyncratic than its predecessors. Combining the traditional strengths of the Anchor Yale Bible series with the latest research in biblical scholarship, Schipper’s much-needed volume will succeed Edward F. Campbell’s 1975 edition as the go-to commentary for years to come.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 12, 2016
3 people are currently reading
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 30, 2015
Jeremy Schipper. Ruth: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Volume 7. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016, 221 pp., $75.00 (hardcover).
*I’d like to express my gratitude to Yale University Press for providing me with a review copy in exchange for my honest opinion.
The newest addition to the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Jeremy Schipper’s (Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Temple University) commentary on the book of Ruth is the most up-to-date coverage of Ruth. His methodology considers Ruth in it’s ancient Israelite literary context rather than it’s canonical position. He operates under the supposition that MTL is the most reliable because of the few significant textual variants and uses other MS for reconstructing difficult translations. Furthermore, he tentatively argues that the author lived in the Persian period. With regard to languages, he focuses more on literary effects of language rather than etymologies because the evidence for such an approach is more compelling. And it is more compelling to interpret orthographic features as an archaizing literary tool than evidence for the date of composition.
Characteristic of all Anchor Yale Bible commentaries, the commentary contains a lengthy introduction, translation, textual commentary, and comments on the textual notes. With regard to his suppositions, I appreciate Schipper’s ideas about Ruth and ethnicity. He writes that “there is no reason why one must read Ruth against the backdrop of condemnations of Judahite marriages with Moabites. One could just as easily read it as one of several examples of texts that discuss such marriages without a clear polemic against them” (40). Scholars have often assumed that Ruth, especially in canonical context, opposes Ezra-Nehemiah. Most recently, this is demonstrated in Daniel Hawk’s commentary on Ruth. Hawk’s commentary, unfortunately, falls into the trap of assuming Ruth is a polemic against Ezra-Nehemiah and “legalistic tendencies” (Click here to read the review). While there are clearly differences, Schipper is justified and wise to avoid canonical interpretation and in turn recognizes the diversity of marriage traditions in ancient Israel. For this reason, he is able to focus on more pertinent textual issues than the extent to which Ruth is a polemic against the nature of marriage in Ezra-Nehemiah.
Another major strength of Schipper’s commentary is his recognition current politically relevant issues. Consequently he is enabled to focus more on issues relevant to the text in it’s own context. For example, in addressing sexual desire in Ruth, Schipper interacts with queer readings. He notes that Queer readings are not anachronistic, just as hetero-normativity readings likewise assume “that all texts reflect one or two universally constant sexual identities” (37). His keen observations on the issue of sexual desire simultaneously address modern sentiments in interpretive circles and focus his own interpretive lens even more.
Finally, I appreciate how Schipper’s careful analysis of the archaic elements are not used to establish a date of authorship. In early scholarship, mismatch in gender, or “gender neutralization”, was used to establish a date of authorship; yet, as he also notes, “scholars have raised enough reasonable doubt to caution against using these forms as solid evidence of the date of Ruth’s written composition” (92). Unfortunately, he does not offer an alternative explanation for the “gender neutralization”. He addresses Timothy Lim’s explanation that the gender discord is meant to distinguish speech patterns of the elderly from the young; however, after his critique that Lim does not consider the gender discord in the narrator’s speech, he offers no alternative. With an issue so pertinent to interpreting Ruth, Schipper should offer some sort of conclusion about how he interprets the purpose of the “gender neutralization”. What, at least in Schipper’s view, is the literary effect of the discord?
Continuing with the issues of his commentary, I have two primary issues. The first has to do with the narrative ambiguity and selective representation. In the introduction, Schipper notes the distinctions between selective representation and narrative ambiguity. While he explains the distinction clearly, he does not explore the possible literary effects of ambiguity. I recall a paper at the Society of Pentecostal Studies specfically on this topic. The presenter suggested that the ambiguity reads the reader by allowing them to fill in the gaps (At the moment, I do not recall who presented this paper), challenging the readers presuppositions about things like ethnicity, identity, and sexuality. I wonder if that may be a solution to the ambiguity present in Schipper’s commentary. Throughout his commentary, he notes moments of narrative ambiguity, often assuming that there must be a single, correct interpretation of the text. Perhaps the quality of his commentary could have been expanded by exploring the possibility of narrative ambiguity as a literary device.
Secondly, Schipper has much to say regarding the use of the blessing formula. One area which is not approached is the relationship between blessing and it’s perceived function. In the book of Ruth, the blessings are almost always used in relation to the dire situation of Ruth and Naomi. Naomi uses the blessing formula in Ruth 1:8 as something to oppose the emptiness, bitterness, and death facing herself (see Ruth 1:20-21). Boaz’s blessing in 2:12 functions to give Ruth good luck. Likewise, Naomi’s blessing in 2:19 even blesses Boaz for his kindness to the living and to the dead. This is important because it demonstrates that the perceived function of blessings in Ruth actually act in some apotropaic manner. This is supported by Jeremy Smoak’s recent publication The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture (Oxford University Press, 2015) which argues that blessings in ancient Israel held an apotropaic function. In short, Schipper’s commentary would be improved with the inclusion of discussion about the apotropaic function of blessings in the book of Ruth.
In conclusion, even aside from these two minor issues, Schipper’s commentary is one of the best places to start with any research on the book of Ruth, or even topics relating to Ruth. With nuanced analysis the language of Ruth, Schipper argues convincingly for interpretative choices, raises new questions, and enables to reader to negotiate with the text. Although one must address other commentaries for more theologically focused readings and canonical readings, such as it’s presence within the Megilloth, Schipper’s careful exegetical work established his commentary as a standard for the future of Ruth scholarship. Like any commentary, few will actually read through the whole thing as I did; however, for those who utilize this resource for research, it is undoubtedly a the best commentary on the book of Ruth published within the last year.
Original review posted at The Biblical Review: https://thebiblicalreview.wordpress.c...
*I’d like to express my gratitude to Yale University Press for providing me with a review copy in exchange for my honest opinion.
The newest addition to the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Jeremy Schipper’s (Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Temple University) commentary on the book of Ruth is the most up-to-date coverage of Ruth. His methodology considers Ruth in it’s ancient Israelite literary context rather than it’s canonical position. He operates under the supposition that MTL is the most reliable because of the few significant textual variants and uses other MS for reconstructing difficult translations. Furthermore, he tentatively argues that the author lived in the Persian period. With regard to languages, he focuses more on literary effects of language rather than etymologies because the evidence for such an approach is more compelling. And it is more compelling to interpret orthographic features as an archaizing literary tool than evidence for the date of composition.
Characteristic of all Anchor Yale Bible commentaries, the commentary contains a lengthy introduction, translation, textual commentary, and comments on the textual notes. With regard to his suppositions, I appreciate Schipper’s ideas about Ruth and ethnicity. He writes that “there is no reason why one must read Ruth against the backdrop of condemnations of Judahite marriages with Moabites. One could just as easily read it as one of several examples of texts that discuss such marriages without a clear polemic against them” (40). Scholars have often assumed that Ruth, especially in canonical context, opposes Ezra-Nehemiah. Most recently, this is demonstrated in Daniel Hawk’s commentary on Ruth. Hawk’s commentary, unfortunately, falls into the trap of assuming Ruth is a polemic against Ezra-Nehemiah and “legalistic tendencies” (Click here to read the review). While there are clearly differences, Schipper is justified and wise to avoid canonical interpretation and in turn recognizes the diversity of marriage traditions in ancient Israel. For this reason, he is able to focus on more pertinent textual issues than the extent to which Ruth is a polemic against the nature of marriage in Ezra-Nehemiah.
Another major strength of Schipper’s commentary is his recognition current politically relevant issues. Consequently he is enabled to focus more on issues relevant to the text in it’s own context. For example, in addressing sexual desire in Ruth, Schipper interacts with queer readings. He notes that Queer readings are not anachronistic, just as hetero-normativity readings likewise assume “that all texts reflect one or two universally constant sexual identities” (37). His keen observations on the issue of sexual desire simultaneously address modern sentiments in interpretive circles and focus his own interpretive lens even more.
Finally, I appreciate how Schipper’s careful analysis of the archaic elements are not used to establish a date of authorship. In early scholarship, mismatch in gender, or “gender neutralization”, was used to establish a date of authorship; yet, as he also notes, “scholars have raised enough reasonable doubt to caution against using these forms as solid evidence of the date of Ruth’s written composition” (92). Unfortunately, he does not offer an alternative explanation for the “gender neutralization”. He addresses Timothy Lim’s explanation that the gender discord is meant to distinguish speech patterns of the elderly from the young; however, after his critique that Lim does not consider the gender discord in the narrator’s speech, he offers no alternative. With an issue so pertinent to interpreting Ruth, Schipper should offer some sort of conclusion about how he interprets the purpose of the “gender neutralization”. What, at least in Schipper’s view, is the literary effect of the discord?
Continuing with the issues of his commentary, I have two primary issues. The first has to do with the narrative ambiguity and selective representation. In the introduction, Schipper notes the distinctions between selective representation and narrative ambiguity. While he explains the distinction clearly, he does not explore the possible literary effects of ambiguity. I recall a paper at the Society of Pentecostal Studies specfically on this topic. The presenter suggested that the ambiguity reads the reader by allowing them to fill in the gaps (At the moment, I do not recall who presented this paper), challenging the readers presuppositions about things like ethnicity, identity, and sexuality. I wonder if that may be a solution to the ambiguity present in Schipper’s commentary. Throughout his commentary, he notes moments of narrative ambiguity, often assuming that there must be a single, correct interpretation of the text. Perhaps the quality of his commentary could have been expanded by exploring the possibility of narrative ambiguity as a literary device.
Secondly, Schipper has much to say regarding the use of the blessing formula. One area which is not approached is the relationship between blessing and it’s perceived function. In the book of Ruth, the blessings are almost always used in relation to the dire situation of Ruth and Naomi. Naomi uses the blessing formula in Ruth 1:8 as something to oppose the emptiness, bitterness, and death facing herself (see Ruth 1:20-21). Boaz’s blessing in 2:12 functions to give Ruth good luck. Likewise, Naomi’s blessing in 2:19 even blesses Boaz for his kindness to the living and to the dead. This is important because it demonstrates that the perceived function of blessings in Ruth actually act in some apotropaic manner. This is supported by Jeremy Smoak’s recent publication The Priestly Blessing in Inscription and Scripture (Oxford University Press, 2015) which argues that blessings in ancient Israel held an apotropaic function. In short, Schipper’s commentary would be improved with the inclusion of discussion about the apotropaic function of blessings in the book of Ruth.
In conclusion, even aside from these two minor issues, Schipper’s commentary is one of the best places to start with any research on the book of Ruth, or even topics relating to Ruth. With nuanced analysis the language of Ruth, Schipper argues convincingly for interpretative choices, raises new questions, and enables to reader to negotiate with the text. Although one must address other commentaries for more theologically focused readings and canonical readings, such as it’s presence within the Megilloth, Schipper’s careful exegetical work established his commentary as a standard for the future of Ruth scholarship. Like any commentary, few will actually read through the whole thing as I did; however, for those who utilize this resource for research, it is undoubtedly a the best commentary on the book of Ruth published within the last year.
Original review posted at The Biblical Review: https://thebiblicalreview.wordpress.c...
April 28, 2025
There is a bizarre, cult-like sect called Israel Only which it is my misfortune to engage with occasionally on Facebook. In response to a comment I made on Ruth, one of the IO crowd posted an AI generated word wall which contained the following:
"In Disability and Isaiah's Suffering Servant, [Jeremy] Schipper discusses otherness and marginality in the Hebrew Bible, including Ruth’s identity. He maintains that Ruth remains a Moabite and is not transformed into an Israelite, instead being used to challenge social boundaries"
This was especially bizarre because the book referenced says nothing whatsoever about Ruth, let alone her identity. I imagine that this AI, no doubt preprogrammed to search for IO friendly resources on the internet, somehow confused Schipper’s book on Isaiah’s suffering servant with his commentary on Ruth.
Naturally I was curious as to whether Schipper’s commentary on Ruth said anything like what the IO friendly AI said it did. While Schipper does not challenge the idea that Ruth remains a Moabite, neither does he ever state that she does remain a Moabite. As far as whether Schipper says Ruth was not transformed into an Israelite, Schipper does not say this either. In fact, he does say Ruth became a Judahite (p43) which goes a long way towards saying she became an Israelite. He also makes the interesting point that since Moab was the grandson of Abraham’s brother Nahor, the marriage of Boaz and Ruth could be viewed as the reunification of the lineages of the two brothers. In discussing this he points out that the matriarchs Rachel and Leah were also grandchildren of Nahor. He also suggests that the reason Boaz mentions Ruth’s Moabite ethnicity in 4.5 is not to emphasize her otherness but again to emphasize the reunification of the two lineages of Abraham and Nahor. Whether one accepts Schipper’s analysis or not, it is very clear that the IO programmed AI has grossly misrepresented him.
I really enjoyed this commentary on Ruth and I thought it compared favorably to other commentaries on Ruth. I had difficulty following Frederick Bush’s textual notes because I hardly know any Hebrew. Schipper’s textual notes were easier for me to follow because the Hebrew words were transcribed into Latin letters. Also Schipper’s textual notes made frequent comparisons between the Masoretic texts and other versions of Ruth, especially the Greek versions. I suppose that someone more familiar with Hebrew might enjoy Bush’s commentary more. Certainly they are both fine commentaries.
"In Disability and Isaiah's Suffering Servant, [Jeremy] Schipper discusses otherness and marginality in the Hebrew Bible, including Ruth’s identity. He maintains that Ruth remains a Moabite and is not transformed into an Israelite, instead being used to challenge social boundaries"
This was especially bizarre because the book referenced says nothing whatsoever about Ruth, let alone her identity. I imagine that this AI, no doubt preprogrammed to search for IO friendly resources on the internet, somehow confused Schipper’s book on Isaiah’s suffering servant with his commentary on Ruth.
Naturally I was curious as to whether Schipper’s commentary on Ruth said anything like what the IO friendly AI said it did. While Schipper does not challenge the idea that Ruth remains a Moabite, neither does he ever state that she does remain a Moabite. As far as whether Schipper says Ruth was not transformed into an Israelite, Schipper does not say this either. In fact, he does say Ruth became a Judahite (p43) which goes a long way towards saying she became an Israelite. He also makes the interesting point that since Moab was the grandson of Abraham’s brother Nahor, the marriage of Boaz and Ruth could be viewed as the reunification of the lineages of the two brothers. In discussing this he points out that the matriarchs Rachel and Leah were also grandchildren of Nahor. He also suggests that the reason Boaz mentions Ruth’s Moabite ethnicity in 4.5 is not to emphasize her otherness but again to emphasize the reunification of the two lineages of Abraham and Nahor. Whether one accepts Schipper’s analysis or not, it is very clear that the IO programmed AI has grossly misrepresented him.
I really enjoyed this commentary on Ruth and I thought it compared favorably to other commentaries on Ruth. I had difficulty following Frederick Bush’s textual notes because I hardly know any Hebrew. Schipper’s textual notes were easier for me to follow because the Hebrew words were transcribed into Latin letters. Also Schipper’s textual notes made frequent comparisons between the Masoretic texts and other versions of Ruth, especially the Greek versions. I suppose that someone more familiar with Hebrew might enjoy Bush’s commentary more. Certainly they are both fine commentaries.
March 15, 2025
Helpful for research and exegesis of the text, probably not all that helpful for preaching as there is a lack of theology.
Side note: I have been skeptical of the Anchor commentary series because it’s almost exclusively coming from a historical-critical hermeneutic. However, when you know what you’re looking for (the granular details of lexical issues and syntax largely found under the ‘notes’ section) then this can be very helpful.
Side note: I have been skeptical of the Anchor commentary series because it’s almost exclusively coming from a historical-critical hermeneutic. However, when you know what you’re looking for (the granular details of lexical issues and syntax largely found under the ‘notes’ section) then this can be very helpful.
July 7, 2023
Impressive and thorough scholarship.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews