Bush, F. Ruth/Esther. WBC. Word, 1996 (514 pp.; 1-268). Bush provides an interesting and informative survey of the different canonical locations of Ruth–whether in the Prophets after Judges (as in most English Bibles) or somewhere in the Writings (as in Hebrew editions). While his argument for the latter is compelling, it is anchored primarily to a theory about a date for the book, so that theological reasons for its location in the canon remain largely unexplored. The introductory discussions on the book’s textual issues and its compositional unity follow suit. Readers may find the literary discussion of Ruth’s genre helpful, which begins slowly but engages a number of important issues and the scholars who are raising them. The commentary itself is fairly technical and excels where the series does: in its textual discussion. A knowledge of Hebrew is required to appreciate the contribution in full, but the commentary’s depth is also its strength, and the explanation sections certainly aid the effort to understand the book’s message.

Campbell, Jr., E. F. Ruth. AB. Doubleday, 1975 (189 pp.). A strength of Campbell’s commentary is its engaging discussion of the Hebrew short story as a literary genre, and the artistry of the story-teller’s use of poetics to tell the story. This introduction–which asks a very basic question: What is the book of Ruth?–establishes an important context from which the commentary reader is able to approach other matters of form, theology, the book’s canonical status and location, and, of course, the date of its composition and its textual recensions. The commentary itself is fairly detailed. In keeping with Anchor’s format, the author’s translation of the passage is followed by technical notes on the text, followed by the comments. The technical nature of the commentary has both positive and negative corollaries. Like those who will consult Bush, Campbell’s readers will benefit from a working knowledge of Hebrew. However, precisely because of its thoroughgoing engagement, the commentary will prove to be a rich resource for ongoing reference.

Hubbard, Jr., R. L. The Book of Ruth. Eerdmans, 1998 (317 pp.). The readability of Hubbard’s introduction puts him closer to Block than to Bush or Campbell. At times, however, the comments err on the side of what Yale theologian George Lindbeck has called an “experiential-expressive” approach: one is invited to “relate” to Ruth or Boaz or Naomi “existentially”–as if one is really there in the field feeling the hot breeze ruffle the hair, or at the gate conversing with the elders. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with finding meaningful points of relation. But as soon as the reader’s ability to relate to the text becomes a barometer for meaningful interpretations, other voices–the author’s, for instance–may become muted. On the other hand, a strength of Hubbard’s commentary is that it is well footnoted. This relieves the pressure (and potential confusion) of splicing the commentary into various sections in order to cover different aspects of interpretation. The more technical observations are simply included below the main body, rendering the commentary even more conducive to quick reference without sacrificing detail.

Robertson Farmer, K. A. “Ruth.” NIB. Abingdon, 1998 (1388 pp.; 898-946). Views the book as a sophisticated, “kaleidoscopic” narrative, “more like an extended parable than a historical report” (891), with similarities to Jonah, or Nathan’s story to David in 2 Samuel 12:1-7. But in lieu of easy character correlation in these other stories, Farmer is more cautious than Hubbard about seeing in the person of Ruth an obvious set of moral qualities which the book means to bring to bear on the reader. In fact, while the key interpretive issue lies in the area of identification, Farmer argues that it is Naomi, not Ruth, whose qualities the book highlights as becoming to the people of God. Moreover, it is Naomi’s redemption which provides the specific context for a more subtle and elaborate presentation of the way God redeems his people over time. A unique feature of Farmer’s commentary is a section entitled “Reading Ruth in Various Life Settings.” This is a welcome feature (and could have been longer!) which highlights only a few of the many ways different approaches to interpretation might be confronted by the message of the book. Reflection on this key hermeneutical issue stands to enrich the use of this commentary for study and teaching in a variety of contexts.