Jeremy Schipper's commentary on the book of Ruth is the second of the Anchor Bible series (now titled the Anchor Yale Bible); the first was written by Edward F. Campbell and has been a standard in Ruth scholarship since its publication in 1975. Given the time lapse and considerable development in Ruth scholarship, this update is necessary and important. Schipper's erudite volume both complements and moves beyond the first.
Schipper skillfully adheres to the hallmarks of the Anchor Bible series. The introductory material is robust and also specific, as he attends to the typical questions of translation and context while also sketching out his own chosen focus, namely, “the nature of relationships in the book of Ruth” (29). Following an extensive bibliography and translation of the book in its entirety, Schipper structures the “Notes and Comments” according to the narrative's geographical transitions, which results in short sections that he means to be “user-friendly” (6). Throughout the commentary, Schipper predictably attends to textual minutiae, working from the MTL but frequently referencing other versions and drawing on a wide range of interpretive material in his analysis.
Schipper adopts a meticulous and uncompromising methodology, which he identifies according to “the context of ancient Israelite literary traditions” (10). Thus, he rejects canonical context as a meaningful interpretive locus, but also displays reticence with respect to historical claims, being “agnostic” about Ruth's reliance or nonreliance on other biblical texts (16). Because of these exegetical strictures, Schipper often downplays historical and literary aspects of the book that previous scholars emphasize, offering a fresh perspective on long-held interpretations. For example, he rejects the classic notion that the positive portrayal of the Moabite Ruth reflects a polemic against negative assessments of Judahite/Moabite marriages in other biblical texts (e.g., Ezra 9:1-2; Neh 13:1-2), suggesting instead that it is simply one of the many biblical texts that do not present Moab negatively. Also significant is Schipper's sharply minimalist understanding of divine involvement in the narrative. In clear contrast to his predecessor Campbell, Schipper argues that attributing “hidden providence” to the actions of human characters “confuses the nature of the divine actions depicted in the book and artificially increases their amount” (32). He is similarly careful in his treatment of the book's human characters, unwilling to ascribe “motivations” in a narrative that only describes the “effects” of human activity.
The advantage of this approach lies in its precision; it gives readers a baseline from which to decipher the multiple historical and literary ambiguities of the narrative largely free of any fanciful imaginings from the commentator. However, there are exegetical moments that might feel unnecessarily severe to those who have long treasured the seemingly affirmative relationships found in this uniquely female biblical text. Not only does Schipper argue against too sentimental an understanding of the Ruth/Boaz relationship, he also cautions against an “overly romantic understanding” of the Ruth/Naomi relationship, and focuses instead on the unequal power dynamics at play between the two (105). This standpoint can provide an important corrective to overwrought interpretations, but it also attends little to the value of the narrative's ambiguities as such. This is work that Schipper leaves to others, particularly the reader his commentary is meant to aid.
This new commentary will no doubt be a benchmark for contemporary studies on the book of Ruth and belongs in every campus library. The technical nature of the volume does not preclude its use by enterprising undergraduates, and it is essential for all graduate students, scholars, and pastors contending with this unique biblical narrative.
