Robert Alter (who, over recent decades, has done a complete translation of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) with close attention to linguistic detail) makes an interesting observation about the Book of Ruth, in his introduction to it in his “The Hebrew Bible”.
Chronologically, the events happen early. The Christian Old Testament, aligning with the Septuagint, places the book before Samuel. The opening is “in the days when judges ruled” (i.e. pre-Samuel). And the end of the book is about establishing Ruth and Boaz as being early, as great-grandparents of King David. That lures us down the avenue of “events are early; therefore the writing is early”. But Alter, in line with others, reckons that, despite its using the more classical style of earlier Hebrew, as though nearly contemporaneous with the events, there is much internal detail that places the writing of the book much later.
As an analogy, imagine if one of us here were to try to write something in the style of, say, Shakespeare or perhaps even slightly earlier. If we were good enough, we could make a passable attempt. But doubtless we would have inevitable lapses where we get something slightly wrong, such as syntactically, or using a more recent word.
For example, suppose you came across a text that said:
To be, or to not be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slugs and tank-shells of outrageous fortune,
Or to take tasers against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To pass: to sleep;
…
(Assume you don’t know the original text!) At first sight, it looks Shakespearian. But look closer, and the detail reveals it couldn’t be from his time, but must be later.
In other words, Ruth, like my faux-Shakespeare, has the appearance of being early, but there are tell-tale signs pointing to its having to be much later.
