IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPLETE a commentary on two books of the Bible without being immensely aware of one’s indebtedness to the work of those who have gone before. I feel a tremendous sense of gratitude for all of their labor and insight from which I have benefited. In fact, twenty years ago, few commentaries attempted to explain how the different parts of the book of Judges fit together in order to make up the whole. Dissection and disjointed comment produced the same in the pulpit. Today this situation has changed. A number of outstanding works on the literary aspects of this book are available to enhance an understanding of the book. Most valuable for me have been the excellent monographs or commentaries of R. M. Polzin, B. G. Webb, L. Klein, R. H. O’Connell, and D. I. Block. Also beneficial to my study have been articles and essays by various scholars who have uncovered many of the book’s internal structures. For the book of Ruth, I have greatly profited from the works of E. F. Campbell Jr., J. M. Sasson, R. L. Hubbard Jr., R. Westbrook, M. D. Gow, A. Berlin, F. W. Bush, and D. I. Block.
In the Original Meaning sections of this volume, the approach I have utilized in both Judges and Ruth is a canonical, rhetoric-type reading. There are basically two reasons for this. (1) This approach is best suited to uncover the coherent message of each book as it is developed within all the individual sections and within its place in the canon of Scripture. (2) It brings forth the most benefits from the text for the modern community of faith. While diachronic approaches serve an important function for scholarly inquiries into the Bible, they do not help explain the final form of the text nor do they facilitate teaching and preaching by the modern pastor or layperson.
Judges and Ruth, in many ways, are literary masterpieces. Partly because of the very nature of commentary writing and partly because of the nature of sermon making, this has not always been appreciated. It is not simply the content of each book that is important, it is how that content is communicated in each that is important.
I am also indebted to John H. Walton, Terry Muck, and Verlyn Verbrugge for their helpful criticisms, suggestions, and encouragements that improved this work on all levels. Finally, I must express my sincere gratitude to my wife, Patti, and my children, Kenneth, Andrew, and Rebecca, for their tolerance and patience at each stage in the commentary’s production.
K. Lawson Younger Jr.
Trinity International University/Divinity School
May 15, 2001