Scholars have seen a number of problems involved in this concluding section to the Book of Ruth, but for the most part those problems are not relevant for the translator. For many scholars the genealogy is a later addition which is even inconsistent with the preceding story. So E. König, Einleitung in das AT, 1893, page 287; A. Bertholet, op. cit., ad loc.; S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, 1913, pages 455-456; L. B. Wolfensen, “The Character, Contents, and Date of Ruth,” AJSL 27, 1910-1911, page 293; Jouon, op. cit., ad loc.; Haller, op. cit., ad loc. For some, even 4.17b has to be considered as a later addition. See O. Eißfeldt, Einleitung, pages 648-650; F. Dijkema, Ruth 4.17-22, in NThT 24, 1935, pages 111-118. Other scholars, while admitting the secondary character of the genealogy taken from 1 Chronicles 2.4-15 or from its source, do not see an inconsistency with the earlier part of the book. So A. Bentzen, op. cit., II, page 183. Hertzberg and Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc. On the other hand, some scholars consider the genealogy as an integral part of the book, revealing the final purpose of the story. So K. F. Keil, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung, 1873, page 437; L. Fillion, in Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, V, 1912, cols. 1280-1281; Tamisier, op. cit., ad loc. There is, of course, a slight possibility that the genealogy was a kind of afterthought, but genealogies were entirely too important to the Hebrew people to be regarded as something extra or nonessential. In fact, this genealogy may very well be a clue to the significance of the story itself, namely, the fact that David possessed in his own lineage a person of Moabite background. It is possible that this reference is an attempt to correct an ancient tradition concerning the origin of David, which claimed that he had come from the country of Moab. The story of Ruth would show that the family of David was in reality from Bethlehem, and only David’s great-grandmother came from Moab. Nevertheless, she had become a Jewess. So Gerleman, op. cit., par. 6: “Sinn und Zweck des Buches.” It is, however, quite impossible on this limited evidence and type of context to determine with any degree of certainty the purpose of the genealogy, except to indicate that it would appear to be an important element, and from the standpoint of Hebrew history and tradition, a fitting conclusion.

The proper names should be transliterated on the basis of the general principles already discussed in the comments on 1.2.

The Hebrew text typically employs a verb between each set of names, rendered in traditional translations as “begot.” Most later translations into English employ expressions such as “Perez was the father of Hezron, Hezron was the father of Ram,” etc. However, this type of genealogy is awkward to read, and it is therefore probably better to employ an adaptation such as that in Good News Translation, which introduces the family line as being from Perez to David and then enumerates the principal person in each generation.

It may be important in this context to have some supplementary note to indicate that David is the famous King David. With Septuagint, Syriac version, Vetus Latina and Vulgate A and Φ.

In some receptor languages adaptations of this type of genealogy must be made because of the normal direction for designating relations. For example, in some languages one counts back from a particular person; hence the genealogy would begin with David and count back, enumerating the various men back to Perez. On the other hand, it may be necessary in some languages to assume that Obed is the pivotal person and therefore count back to Perez and forward to David. Otherwise the whole time setting would need to be changed, thus relating the time to the author rather than to the story.

Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Ruth. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .