Introduction to the Book of Ruth and Esther

Franklin Joseph. I

UBS, Pune

Introduction
The Book of Ruth and Esther predominantly took its place in the Hebrew canon as well as
Christian canon through a lot of trials, though it is obvious to read with the theological motif.
Both the characters are simply genuine and active who brought the salvation and paved the way
to bring Messiah through their genealogy. To study any book in detail, it is necessary to know
the fundamental data of that book. Therefore, keeping this in mind, let’s try to find out the
authorship, date of composition, its Genres, historical context, place in the canon, its purpose,
Literary history, message and the theology of these two books in a precise manner. Firstly, Book
of Ruth and then followed by Book of Esther.

I. Book of Ruth

A. Authorship
According to tradition in the Talmud, the authorship is attributed to Samuel for the book of Ruth
but scholars do not take seriously this tradition anymore1 due to the conflicts within the book can
be clearly observed. i.e, Samuel lived in the period of post Judges but the evidence to this period
seems that it has already ended.2 Tischler proposes that the author of book of Ruth was a woman
because the language indicates with a concern for women in mind. However, this proposal may
fascinate, but she also admits that men are also sympathetic. So, this may not prove her
hypothesis.3 Whoever the author was, he was not an eyewitness to those events because they
occurred somewhere between 100 and 150 years before his time. However, it is vivid that he
must have had admission to written accounts of the family of Judah and the line of Perez.4
Therefore, there’s no evidence to identify the author in the book of Ruth except the hypothesis
that he was a literary artist and skillful teacher.5

1
F. B. Huey, “Ruth”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank. E. Gaebelein (ed.), Vol.3, (Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1992), 510.
2
Robert L. Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the old Testament (Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 1988), 23
3
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 131.
4
Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth (Texas: Ariel
Ministries, 2007), 270.
5
Huey, “Ruth”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 510.

1|Page
 B. Date of Composition
Book of Ruth provides several clues about the timing of its writing; mainly it leads to two
divisions of dates namely Post- Exilic and Pre- Exilic. Firstly, Ruth: 1: 1, the first verse shows
that this book was written after the period of Judges by stating when the Judges judged, it shows
that this was a past event, and it was written after the period of Judges had ended. Secondly, in 4:
7, the author had to explain the custom that was no longer practiced, which shows a lapse of time
between the event and writing of the story. Thirdly, the genealogy happens to end with David
and does not mention about Solomon, so probably it indicates that this might have written at the
time of David but before the time of Solomon. Fourthly, The Language of Ruth in the Hebrew
text is classical Hebrew, showing an early date for the book. Fifthly, the language also contains
many archaic forms that are not found in later Hebrew.6

Wellhausen and his school argued for post- exilic date on the evidence of the book’s location in
the Hagiographa and it Deuteronomic formulae (1:1).7 One Argument for late authorship is the
existence of Aramaisms in the book as in 1: 20.8 The presence of such language, the arguments
runs, points to a post- exilic date for the books composition. Second, scholars claimed that the
legal customs evident in the book reflects the situation of the post- exilic period. Third, scholars
found the similarity in the book’s various literary forms. However, all the three proposals
disprove the claim that Ruth’s canonical location in the writings supports a post exilic date.9
When it comes to pre- exilic, many scholars favor this date in the recent trend. Scholars have
also argued on the basis of legal customs especially the custom of shoe removal (4:7) and also it
appeals to Ruth’s theology enters the discussion. However, the best conclusion that the book was
written during the time of David about 1000 B.C., probably when he was king over Judah only,
before he became king over all Israel.10

C. Genre
When it comes to Genre for the book of Ruth, many commentators have followed Gunkel, as he
proposed novella as the Genre11 deriving from earlier saga and implying fictionality. Gunkel’s
study was essential in the course of literary analysis of the book. Gunkel saw a kinship between
Ruth and the Joseph cycle and contrasted the form within the collection of tradition in the
Abraham and Jacob cycles.12 Others scholars like Hubbard13, E.F. Campbell14 and D.M. Howard
prefer “short story” and often add the adjective “historical”.15

6
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 270- 271.
7
Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress press, 1979), 562.
8
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the old Testament, 24; Raymond B. Dillard
and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 130.
9
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament, 30.
10
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 271.
11
Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm, “Ruth”, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther,
85.
12
Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 562.
13
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the old Testament, 47.

2|Page
 D. Historical Context
As everyone is well known, ancient legal customs provide crucial background to events in the
book of Ruth. The most obvious examples, of course, are the practice of gleaning, the role of the
kinsman- redeemer (2: 20; 3: 9, 12- 13; 4: 4,6), and the oft-cited legal process at the gate (4: 1-
12).16

1. Judges
Ruth 1:1 explains that the story took place during the time of the Judges; and later in the book,
the author shows the story took place during and after a time of famine. If this was the same
famine as that mentioned in Judges 6:3‑4, then the story would have taken place during the time
of Gideon, which is probably precise. There are eight comparisons can be made between Book of
Judges and Ruth for the legal background.17

2. Moabite
Ruth was a Moabite by birth. In a subsequent history, Moabites were the major source of Israel’s
threats. They are the descendants of Moav, Moab, who was the son of Lot through his older
daughter (Gen. 19:37). These Moabites occupied the plateau directly east of and along the
southern half of the Dead Sea, and they became prominent in Israel’s history during the time of
the Exodus. Years of enmity characterized the relations between Israel and Moab. At the time
when Israel passed through the Moabites’ territory, the Amorites had taken control. The chief
god of the Moabites was Chemosh (cf. Num. 21:29), whose worship included human sacrifice (II
Kg. 3:26‑27). They also worshipped the wife of Chemosh, Ashtar.18

14
According to Campbell, this Genre has four characteristics. Firstly, a distinctive literary style which uses prose,
elevated prose and semipoetic, rhythmic elements, especially in speeches. Secondly, its content in including typical
people and important figures. Thirdly, the purpose of the story is to entertain and to instruct. Finally, the audience
delights in the author’s creative wedding of message and literary artistry in the story. For further reading see, E. F.
Campbell, Ruth, ABC, Vol. 7 (New York: Doubleday, 1975), 3- 4.
15
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 132.
16
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the old Testament, 48.
17
Eight comparisons and/or contrasts between the Book of Judges and the Book of Ruth may be made. First, the
Book of Judges highlights immorality; the Book of Ruth shows fidelity, righteousness, and purity. Second, the Book
of Judges shows idolatry; the Book of Ruth shows the worship of the only God. Third, the Book of Judges shows
decline and disloyalty; the Book of Ruth shows devotion. Fourth, the Book of Judges shows lust; but the Book of
Ruth shows love. Fifth, the Book of Judges shows war, but the Book of Ruth shows peace. Sixth, the Book of
Judges shows cruelty, but the Book of Ruth shows kindness. Seventh, the Book of Judges shows disobedience
leading to judgment; the Book of Ruth shows obedience leading to blessing. Eighth, the Book of Judges shows
spiritual darkness; the Book of Ruth, spiritual light. Thus, the story of Ruth is a fitting conclusion to the Book of
Judges, showing a contrast between the tribes of Judah (King David’s forefather) and Benjamin (King Saul’s
forefather) and a contrast between Bethlehem (David’s birthplace) and Gibeah (Saul’s birthplace). It serves as an
introduction to the Books of Samuel and provides the family background for King David. See, Fruchtenbaum,
“Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 274.
18
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 274- 75.

3|Page
 3. Law of the Levirate Marriage
The fundamental idea and evidence for the Levirate marriage can be found in Deuteronomy 25:
5- 10. The term “levirate marriage” comes from the Latin word levir, which means
“brother‑in‑law.” According to the Mosaic Law, a childless widow’s brother‑in‑law is obligated
to marry her and father a son for her in order that his dead brother’s name would continue. This
obligation was only if the widow were childless. What happens in the Book of Ruth does not
follow the strict laws of levirate marriage.19 The key root yavam, meaning, “to perform the duty
of the brother‑in‑law,” does not appear in the context of Ruth. Furthermore, the Book of Ruth
situation does not involve a brother‑in‑law as such. In fact, Naomi laments the fact that she
cannot produce any more sons to take that role (1:11) for her widowed daughters-in-law, Ruth
and Orpah. The concept of kinsman- redeemer, which is that of the gaal, meaning “to redeem” or
“to act as a kinsman,” with goel (kinsman-redeemer) being the normal noun form. Therefore, the
combination of both concept of Kinsman- redeemer and the property law, in this case appears to
be an extension of the law accomplished by combining the law of redemption with the law of
levirate marriage.20

4. The Kinsman- Redeemer

There were three requirements of the kinsman redeemer. First, he was to redeem his brother and
his brother’s inheritance according to his ability if it was poverty that compelled his brother to
sell himself into slavery or to dispose of his land. Second, he was to serve as the avenger of the
family blood. Third, he was to raise up a successor to his brother if his brother died without
leaving a son. The first and third obligations of redeeming land and providing an heir play a role
in the Book of Ruth.21

E. Literary history
Ruth has always attracted attention for the clarity and simplicity of its style. The plot engages the
reader by asset of its balance and drama.22 But as Rauber appropriately points out,

The work is not a charming trifle; rather, we are impressed by its great resonances. It is indeed
a gem, but gem in the sense of a gathered and concentrated power, a bright clarity beneath a
somewhat deceptive setting of lyric grace and simplicity23

The structure contains four basic units, with the story played out in four scenes, essentially each
in one chapter. And there are two stylistic characteristics; first, the book is primarily a dialogue.
Out of eighty five verses of which fifty six verses are dialogues. Second, there is gender

19
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 276.
20
Huey, “Ruth”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 514.
21
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 276.
22
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 133.
23
For Further reading see, D.F. Rauber, “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth.” JBL, 89, 1970, 35.

4|Page
confusion in the text where there is gender disagreement between subject and verb. This is only
noticeable when reading the Hebrew text.24

F. Purpose
The purpose of this book was proposed by many scholars in the 19th and 20th centuries especially
W. Dommershausen who gave a summary on such scholars 25 like A. Bertholet, E. Reuss, P.
Cassel, C. F. Keil, A. Kuenen, W. Staples, A. Jepsen, H. Hertzberg and W. Rudolph, O. Loretz ,
etc., A full reading of the text that will allow several purpose to appear as part of opinions.
Hereby, from this survey of scholarly opinions one may take stand to clarify the authentic
purpose of the Book of Ruth. As many commented that this is the story of providence, G.
Gerleman and R. Hals are correct to present a parallel between Ruth and the patriarchal
narratives where both have the same theological direction.26 Ariels commentary lists atleast six
purposes, firstly, to provide a genealogical link between Judah and David which continues the
messianic Line. Secondly, to show that God still had remnant who had faith and obedience in
that time of apostasy. Thirdly, to illustrate the concept of Kinsman- Redeemer. Fourthly, to
demonstrate that God’s grace included the gentiles. Fifthly, to present the superiority of the
house of David to the House of Saul. Finally, to present a typology of Messiah as the Kinsman-
Redeemer.27

G. Place in the Canon

Book of Ruth comes under the third division of the canon which is Ketubim writings in the
Hebrew Bible collected with five scrolls or Megilloth (Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes,
Lamentations, Ruth and Esther) which was usually read during festival seasons in the

24
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 277.
25
According to Roland E. Murphy, the summary of scholars view on Ruth proposed by W. Dommershausen, the
purpose is multi-dimensional because of the several opinions. But, it all connects to the main theme that which is the
providence of God. From the survey of opinions one may conclude that that there are distinctions can be made,
Firstly, the intention of the story (1:1- 4: 17) is not necessarily the same intention given to the book in the light of 4:
18- 22. Secondly, the story contributes more than one theme such as fedeility, or providence is illustrated and it
should be considered as the intention of the book, For further reading see, Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm, “Ruth”,
Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing house, 1981), 87.
26
According to A. Bertholet, the purpose of Ruth is a recommendation of the Levirate marriage. And to E. Reuss, it
is a justification for the Davidic Succession which is the entire family history of the house of David. For P. Cassel, it
is the power of love. C.F. Keil proposes that the purpose is pious and virtuous ancestors of David are pictured. Most
of the scholars took the position of A. Kuenen and A. Bertholet that the book is a protest against the rigorous
measures taken by Ezra and Nehemiah against the mixed marriages. Whereas, W. Staples found that Ruth contains
certain relationships to the fertility cult. Both H. Hertzberg and W. Rudolph emphasize the providence of the God of
Israel. O. Loretz thinks the central point of Ruth story is the preservation of the name of the family, for further
reading see, Murphy, Ruth”, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther, 86- 87
27
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 279- 280.

5|Page
synagogues.28 This book was not included in the Old Testament canon because of the perfection
of its literary form. Probably, this inclusion took place due to the connection with David.29

Originally, the Book of Ruth was considered as an appendix to the Book of Judges, and so it was
not given a title of its own in the Septuagint. However, in later editions of the Septuagint, the
phrase telos ton kriton was inserted, which means “the end of Judges,” thus indicating a break
between the two books, Judges and Ruth. Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, states that
Ruth was put at the end of the Book of Judges and that Judges and Ruth was actually together a
single book. it shows that the Hebrew‑speaking Jews and the Hellenistic (Greekspeaking) Jews
had different views as to the place of Ruth in the canon, with Hellenistic Jews following the
order as found in the Septuagint.30 Today the English Bible follows the order of Septuagint and
serves as that book’s third appendix where Ruth comes after the Book of Judges.31 The first two
appendices provide a negative picture of the spiritual condition of the people. The Book of Ruth
provides a positive side and shows that there were those who did keep the Law of Moses.32

H. Theological Message
The message of the book is clearly evident that God is faithful in His work of loving,
superintending, and providentially caring for His people. Though the story affirms that God
exercises absolute sway over the affairs and actions of his world, human and otherwise, the stress
is tremendously on the implicitness of his providence. God’s providence is not really “hidden” in
the book of Ruth. 33 The Book of Ruth shows how God rescued Elimalech’s family from
destruction and how Elimalech’s family triumphed over tragedy, leading to the birth of David, a
rightful heir to the kingship of Israel.34 As a result, the author says that David was a divine gift to
Israel. In this way, the book of Ruth is analogous but not similar to the any stories in the Old
Testament that narrate the births of other leaders of Israel. In each case, God provides the leader
by overcoming incredible obstacles which was usually barrenness to the birth of Isaac, Jacob,
Samson, Samuel.35

1. God’s Character
The theology of the book also contributed much to the systematic theology. First of all, Theology
proper is the Doctrine of God and His attributes. First, it teaches God’s Sovereignty and His
control over the affairs of men (1:6, 4:13); eight times in the book it speaks of God’s activity.

28
Louise Pettibone Smith, “Ruth”, The Interpreter’s Bible, George A. Buttrick (ed.), Vol II (New York: Abingdon
Press, 1953), 829.
29
Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 565.
30
G. A. Cooke, “Ruth”, The interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, George A. Buttrick (ed.), Vol IV (New York:
Abingdon Press, 1962), 134.
31
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the old Testament, 26.
32
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 273.
33
Frederic W. Bush, “Ruth, Esther”, Word Biblical commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (eds.),
(Texas: Word Books, 1996), 66.
34
Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 282.
35
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 134.

6|Page
Second, the book uses three names of God: the tetragrammaton, YHVH, is found seventeen times
in this short book; Elohim, meaning “God,” is found three times; Shaddai, meaning “Almighty,”
is found twice. Third, this book teaches that God is free to act in grace (1:8). Fourth, it teaches
God is also free to act in judgment (1:13, 1:20, and 1:21). Fifth, it teaches Jehovah is uniquely
the God of Israel (1:16‑17). Sixth, it teaches the love of God by showing His care for widows.36

2. Human Activity
Book of Ruth consistently pictures God’s activity as hidden behind the actions of human cause
raises a theological question: how do ordinary human actions relate to the deeds of God in the
book of Ruth? In replying this question, one could possibly say that the book presupposes that
God acts in the acts of its human characters. At the same time, the human activity also has its
own limitations: Firstly, the ultimate initiative for events lay with Yahweh’s intervention.
Secondly, Boaz and Ruth may sexually consummate their marriage, but the resulting conception
came only from Yahweh (4: 13).37 The Book of Ruth shares the holistic worldview elsewhere in
the OT. Yahweh moves through human actions which please him because he is sovereignly
immanent in them. The book’s teaching is simple and straight forward: whenever people of faith
practice God-like hesed towards each other, God himself acts in them.38

3. The Life of Hesed

The narrator of the Book of Ruth holds up the character as role models of living by hesed. The
lifestyle of hesed requires an extraordinary commitment. On one hand, Orpah represents one
who does the ordinary, the expected and on the other hand, Ruth represents the one who does
extraordinary, the unexpected. Her commitment was to Naomi’s people and God even in the
afterlife (1:17). Again the Kinsman Boaz willing to sacrifice his own means and his own life for
two impoverished widows. So hereby, Boaz excelled and modeled the extraordinary demands of
hesed. Again Ruth and Boaz exemplify of the extraordinary hesed. Ruth’s visit to the threshing
floor during the night was an ultimate risk neither lost reputation nor new accusations to result
where she and Boaz discovered. Boaz also took risks in bringing her case to the public assembly
(Chapter 4). Both did what hesed demanded. Finally the story stressed that the hesed requires the
things be done in the proper way.39

Apart from these themes and message, there are other contributions like Christology: the concept
and typology of Kinsman Redeemer. Soteriology: The doctrine of Salvation in this book teaches
the fact of Gentile Salvation. And above all, Israelology: the Doctrine of Israel which the name
of Israel appears five times in the book by providing the historical background to the Davidic
covenant (God’s covenant with David) and the kingdom of David.40

36
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament, 67.
37
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament, 71- 72.
38
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament, 72.
39
Hubbard, “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the Old Testament, 73.
40
For further reading see, Fruchtenbaum, “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth, 278.

7|Page
 I. Special problems
Questions and problems are mostly associated with interpretation. Naomi’s relationship to the
family land that was sold is not clear. The reasons for the nearest Kinsman’s refusal to marry
Ruth remain a question. Another problem regarding the morality of the events at the threshing
floor. Scholars like W.E. Staples and H.G. May argue that sacred prostitution might involved
because sacred prostitution was at high place in Bethlehem.

II. Book of Esther

A. Authorship
No passage in the book of Esther names the author nor gives the date of writing. Scholars
contributed their scholarship to the authorship of Book of Esther namely Clement of Alexandria,
Ibn Ezra and more recently Stafford Wright who has been attributed to Mordecai as the author of
this book. Augustine suggested that Ezra was the author of Esther and Baba Bathra 15a propose
that the men of the great synagogue wrote this book.41We don’t find that no one has seriously
argued that Esther herself was the author. Therefore, the author is remains unknown.42 However,
the fact that the book specifically and narrowly has to do with the life and concerns of Jews in
the diaspora renders diaspora authorship a virtual certainty, and the wealth of accurate
knowledge the author evidences about the Persian world and court strongly suggests that he was
a member of the eastern diaspora.43If this book was written in the fifth or fourth century B.C. the
author was probably a Persian Jew. If the book was written in the second century B.C. the author
was probably a Palestinian Jew.
Again the question arise here is, whether Esther was the work of one or several authors?
The unity of the book was first challenged by J. D. Michaelis in 1783, a number of scholars have
agreed with Michaelis. Scholars contributed to the authorship of Esther like Henri Cazelles,
Bardtke, Werner Dommerhausen, and R.K. Harrison.44

B. Date of Composition
Since the author of the Book of Esther is unkonown or uncertain, there can be no absolute date of
composition can be given. But number of scholars had opinion in two principal periods are
usually the most likely date. They are an early date (450- 300 B.C.) and a late date (175- 100

41
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank. E. Gaebelein (ed.), Vol.5, (Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1992), 776.
42
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 776.
43
Frederic W. Bush, “Ruth, Esther”, Word Biblical commentary, 340.
44
According to Henri Cazelles, Esther is a conflation of two independent texts where as Bardtke believe that there
are three different sources available: firstly, Vashti’s downfall; secondly, Esther’s rise to royalty and her great deed;
thirdly, the struggle between Mordecai and Haman. Werner Dommerhausen made a detailed study on Esther and he
determined that Esther was written by one author who used a large number of sources. F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 777. According to R.K. Harrison, the book is a fundamental unity of wrtings of
Mordecai, familiar oral traditions and median and Persian kings annals, For further reading see, R. K. Harrison,
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans publishing house, 1969), 1087.

8|Page
B.C.)45 According to Childs, the date is around towards the end of the Persian period.46 To R. K.
Harrison, it is not later than 350 B.C.47Another argument is that the purim is first referred in 2
Maccabees 15: 36, where it is called the day of Mordecai. Many late date proponents, following
Spinoza argued that the Book of Esther was written appropriately after the persecutions of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes(175-164 B.C.). 48 The absence of copies of Esther at Qumran also
witnessed its lateness but Fohrer claims that the absence of any unknown copies of Esther at
Qumran is irrelevant to date the book. Therefore, it can be only dated by the authors knowledge
of Persian life and customs, the use of Persian loan words, and the style of Hebrew outweigh the
arguments for the late date of Esther.49

C. Genre
Traditionally the book of Esther has been read as a straight forward historical narrative, this
position can be understood by the position among the historical books in the LXX and Christian
bibles. There’s a wide range of opinions collectively canvassed by the G. Botterweck concerning
the genre of Esther. He presents it as historical fiction, a festal legend, a history, a novella,
haggadic midrash, a liturgical- political text, a historicized wisdom tale. Therefore, the judgment
of historical fiction is based upon the free style of composition as well as the extraordinary
knowledge of the Persian world and its customs. General criticisms of these genres are either not
properly presented or else they are not convincing.50 W. Dommerhausen studied the genre and its
subgenre in detail and came up with various motifs and provided the solid evidence that the
genre of the book of Esther is fiction: the most frequent is the “Story”.51

D. Historical Context
The author of Esther has chosen to remain anonymous. The author employs the customary
formula for the beginning of an historical account and ends with the typical reference to the
complete chronicle. The name Ahasuerus (Ahashwerosh) is the Hebrew representation of the
Persian Kshayarsha, a name more familiar in its Greek form, Xerxes. Other details in the book of
Esther are not supported by historical evidence. Some scholars have suggested that the book
represents Jewish historicizing of a Babylon or Persian religious rite or festival; hence the names
of Esther and Mordecai are associated with the Babylonian gods Ishtar and Marduk. Esther and
Mordecai portray the religious struggle of the cults related to gods like Ishtar and Marduk as
compared to the persian masters and rulers represented by Haman and Xerxes.52

45
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 778.
46
Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 602.
47
Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1090.
48
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 778- 779.
49
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 779.
50
Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm, “Ruth”, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther,
154.
51
Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm, “Ruth”, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther,
156.
52
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 191.

9|Page
 In 1984, D.J.A. Clines presented five different stories of Esther to show the development
of the Esther story through the stages that he identified and modified the meaning of the story.
The five stages are:53

1. The Esther (and Mordecai) stories, hypothetical sources for

2. The pre- Masoretic story, witnessed to by the Greek, and expanded in to
3. The proto- Masoretic story itself expanded by various appendices to form
4. The Masoretic Story which was translated and supplemented by major semitic and Greek
additions to form
5. The Septuagint story.54

The LXX contains six major additions to the narrative:

1. The dream of Mordecai

2. The 2edictof Artaxerxes
3. The prayer of Mordecai
4. The prayer of Esther
5. Another edict from Artaxerxes and
6. An interpretation of Mordecai’s dream with reference to Purim.

Esther was queen in the seventh to twelfth years of Xerxes’ reign. According to the Greek
historians, Xerxes’ wife was named Amestris; though various efforts have been made to identify
with either Vashti or Esther. According to Herodotous (3: 48), Persian queens have to selected
from one of seven Persian families and Darius too had married from outside families. Two recent
studies on Esther are likely connected to the Exodus event. Gerleman found there are numerous
parallels between Esther and Exodus event 55 whereas S.B. Berg found that the two books
manifest quite different attitudes taken to the monarchs.56

E. Literary history
The author of Esther took extensive delight in using irony, satire, and recurring motifs in writing
his account, thus it resulted in a precious little story. Particular actions or states of affairs often
resulted in an opposite of the expected result in which a theme specifically stated in 9:1, 22,
25.This literary device is called peripety, eg. Haman schemed to destroy Mordecai but ultimately
him and his whole family was destroyed. Using the literary style of irony frequently alongside,
the authors appears to take particular delight in satire which was aimed at the Persians and
Persian men in particular. The story of Esther derives much of its literary beauty from the
recurring motifs of which it is woven. Drinking and banqueting forma an important themes in the
book. Plots that are associated with banqueting (1:3, 5, 8, 9; 2: 18; 5: 4- 5, 8, 12; 6: 14; 7: 8; 8:

53
D.J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: the story of the story (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 139.
54
For further reading see, the five Esther stories and their meaning, D.J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: the story of
the story, 139- 174.
55
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 193.
56
S. B. Berg, The book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure (Missoula: Scholar press, 1977), 6-7.

10 | P a g e
17, 9:17- 19, 22), and in one case it is opposite, fasting (4: 3, 15-18). The writer also appears to
take delight in items that comes in pairs. There are two lists of king’s servants (1: 10- 14), two
g4atherings of women (2: 8, 19), two houses for the women (2:12-14), two fasts (4:3, 16), two
consultations by Haman with his wife and friends (5: 14; 6:13) etc., Reporting also such
“duplications” appears to be a compositional technique for the writer. 57

F. Purpose
The primary intention of the book of Esther was to explain the historical origin of Purim58and
within the book itself is an effort to explain why urban Jews have a two day celebration in
contrast to the country Jews (9: 15-19). Moreover, the specification of fasting is the
preoccupation of 9: 29- 32. According to Harrison, “one important purpose” that was to “furnish
the historical background of the institution of a feast that was not prescribed in the Torah.” The
purpose of Esther has been sought in political motives by some scholars which was the
deliverance of the Jewish people in their critical time and to keep it as a memory through the
annual observance of the purim festival. 59Some Christian scholars proposed that the real purpose
of the book was to serve as prophecy that is the foreshadowing of the events and the revelation in
the NT. 60 As same like Book of Ruth, most commentaries were written to teach God’s
providential care for his people. There’s another possibility of purpose is suggested that it is to
show God’s displeasure may be manifested by his silence.61

G. Place in the canon

When it comes to canon, on the human side the Book of Esther must have received immediate
and widespread acceptance by Jewish people because it preserved the rare triumphs over their
enemies. At the same time, there is no doubt that there was sporadic opposition to the book
because of its lack of religious intention and moral teachings. Even this book was absent at
Qumran where every other books was found or at least represented in part, has been explained as
the Essene community’s rejection of the book for theological reasons. This is only a hypothesis
without any evidence which will ultimately be reminded by additional discoveries. Though its
canonicity was accepted widely, by contrast Martin Luther said,

I’m so hostile to this book (2 Macc) and to Esther that I wish they did not exist at all: for
they judaize too greatly and have much heathen impropriety62

In these days, Jewish people hold the book of Esther in highest regard. They say that it is equal
or superior to Torah because it has the history of their festival Purim. Jerusalem Talmud says

57
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 194- 95.
58
Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm, “Ruth”, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, Ecclesiastes and Esther,
156.
59
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 779- 780.
60
D. Harvey, “Esther”, The interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, George A. Buttrick (ed.), Vol II (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1962), 151.
61
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 780.
62
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 783.

11 | P a g e
that though the prophets and the writings may come to nothing but the Pentateuch and Esther
will never perish. Whatever the questions arises about its canonicity, Esther is worthy of its
canonical status.63

H. Theological message
The doctrine of Divine Sovereignty is fundamental to the book of Esther.64 The sovereignty of
God is implicit in the events of the story. Esther implicitly teaches God’s providential care for
his people. Vashti’s deposition, Esther’s selection as her successor and Mordecai discovery of
the plot against the king and his subsequent reward are only few of the many chance happenings
that are better explained by God’s way of affecting the deliverance of his people from their
persecutors. 65 The book clearly reveals that even when God’s people are far from him and
disobedient, they are still the object of his concern and love. Also he works out his purposes
through them (4:14). There’s also a reminder in 4:14 that if one fails to carry out God’s tasks, he
will work out his purposes through one another. The Book of Esther teaches:66

1. The law of retribution for sin by hanging of Haman on his own gallows.
2. The faithfulness is rewarded
3. The value of standing for ones conviction for the truth even in the midst of a dangerous
situation.

I. Special Problems
There are three problems which are very significant and can’t be ignored in interpreting these
problems. Firstly, Absence of God’s name: The book of Esther fails to mention God’s name, the
law, the covenant, the temple, and other characteristics institutions of Israel’s faith is noticeable
even to a common reader. 67Scholars have proposed many solutions to explain such problems: L.
B. Paton believes that to avoid in profaning God’s name if read aloud because this book was
meant to read during the time of merrymaking and drinking. So this is the reason why God’s
name was totally omitted.68 The explanation for the absence of God’s name in Esther can be
more valuably sought in the providence of God and his hiddenness. Many scholars believe that
there is an indirect reference to Esther’s faith when she spoke of fasting (4:16; cf 4:3; 9:31).

Secondly, The Book of Esther caused many problems among Jewish and Christian readers due to
its nationalistic and revengeful spirit. Thus, it comes under the moral and ethical practices. Paton
observed that there is no noble character found in this book including Esther, Xerxes and Haman.
The moral problems are dealt in a different manner by the exegetes: Defense of the actions of
Esther and Mordecai implying that because they are in the Bible, they cannot be wrong. Because

63
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 784.
64
Raymond B. Dillard and Temper Longman III, “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 196.
65
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 793.
66
Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, 606.
67
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 784.
68
L. B. Paton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the book of Esther. The International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908), 95.

12 | P a g e
of the morality, the book goes through an extreme critical and condemning attitude. Liberal
Commentators tend to emphasize the immoral acts in Esther as some kind of indirect
condemnation of the scriptures. On the other hand, many conservative scholars ignore or fell
bound to justify the unscriptural conduct of Mordecai and Esther (eg. Hiding her identity,
marriage with a Gentile, ordering the slaughter of their enemies after the tables was turned).69

Thirdly, it’s about the historicity of the events described in Esther. In order to study the
historicity of Esther, it is important to know and discuss about the questions associated with the
historical problems. Some says, it is historical to the fullest and other say, it is partially historical.
Some scholars brand the entire story as fictitious.70

III. Comparison and Contrast between Ruth and Esther

Ruth and Esther are the only two books which named after a woman. Five areas of comparison
or contrast between Ruth and Esther can be identified. First, Ruth was a Gentile, but Esther was
Jewish. Second, Ruth was living among Jews though she was a Gentile, but Esther was a Jew
living among Gentiles. Third, Ruth married a Jew in the royal line, whereas, Esther married a
Gentile who ruled an empire. Fourth, the story of Ruth is a story of faith and blessing, just as the
Book of Esther is also a story of faith and blessing. Fifth, while the Book of Ruth emphasizes the
sovereignty of God with God’s name is mentioned; the Book of Esther emphasizes the
providence of God where God’s name is not mentioned.

Conclusion
As we have seen the survey of both, book of Ruth and book of Esther sealed themselves in the
Hebrew Scripture which was authorized at times of patriarchal society. Both books coincide with
each other in their authorship, theological message and special problems, purpose and literary
history. Scholarly views are very necessary to support the book and its authenticity so that the
inerrancy of the scriptures may not be questioned. There’s also mentioning of the comparison
and contrast between these two books which gives the real essence of their message. The
fundamental ideology and the unity found from these books reflect in purposes which is the
providence of God runs throughout the books. For date and place in canon finds its comfort to
rest upon, due to the scholarship, it has been revived to some extent to come to a conclusion.
Moreover, one can say that the theology of these books foreshadows the upcoming elements of
NT through typology, also contribution of Ruth and Esther to systematic theology in terms of
theology proper, Christology, Soteriology and Israelology should be acknowledged. Therefore,
finally, these two books played a significant role in the scriptures and have gone through
canonical trials, came up with all essential theological messages which is needed for the
churches and missions today.

69
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 785- 787.
70
F. B. Huey, “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 787

13 | P a g e
Bibliography

Berg, S. B. The book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure. Missoula: Scholar press, 1977.\
Bush, Frederic W. “Ruth, Esther”, Word Biblical commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W.
Barker (eds.). Texas: Word Books, 1996.
Campbell, E. F. “Ruth”, ABC, Vol. 7. New York: Doubleday, 1975.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress press,
1979.
Clines, D.J. A. The Esther Scroll: the story of the story. Sheffield: JSOT, 1984.
Cooke, G. A. “Ruth”, The interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, George A. Buttrick (ed.), Vol IV.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1962.
Dillard, Raymond B. Longman III, Temper. “Ruth”, An Introduction to the Old Testament.
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. “Ruth”, Ariels Bible Commentary: The Book of Judges and Ruth.
Texas: Ariel Ministries, 2007.
Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans publishing house,
1969.
Harvey, D. “Esther”, The interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, George A. Buttrick (ed.), Vol II.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962.

Hubbard, Robert L. “The Book of Ruth”, The New International Commentary of the Old
Testament. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing company, 1988.
Huey, F. B. “Ruth”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank. E. Gaebelein (ed.), Vol.3,
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
__________. “Esther”, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Frank. E. Gaebelein (ed.), Vol.5.
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
Murphy, Roland E. Carm, O. “Ruth”, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles,
Ecclesiastes and Esther. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing house, 1981.
Paton, L. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the book of Esther. The International
Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908.
Rauber, D.F. “Literary Values in the Bible: The Book of Ruth.” JBL, 89, 1970, 35.
Smith, Louise Pettibone. “Ruth”, The Interpreter’s Bible, George A. Buttrick (ed.), Vol II. New
York: Abingdon Press, 1953.

14 | P a g e