The clause and I think you ought to know about it is in Hebrew literally “and I thought I would uncover your ear.” The Hebrew verb often translated “thought” is in this context much better translated as “I have decided.” To “uncover the ear” is merely a figure of speech meaning “to inform.” See Baumgartner, s.v. galah. Compare also Accadian uznâ puttu and Dhorme, Emploi métaphorique, page 89. It would be interesting to retain this metaphor or to use a similar metaphor in a receptor language, but rarely can one do so. Septuagint seems to give a literal translation of the Hebrew: apokalupsō to ous sou. It is highly questionable, however, whether this is idiomatic Greek. Sometimes an approximate expression may be employed; for example, “to open your ears” or “to cause your ears to hear.”

Now then … then to me is a rather complex construction in Hebrew. It could be translated somewhat literally as “saying, buy (it) in the presence of those sitting (here) and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem (it), redeem (it); but if you will not redeem (it), With many Hebrew manuscripts, Targum, Syriac version, Septuagint, and Vulgate, one should read the second person singular instead of the third person singular. tell me, that I may know, for there is no one beside you to redeem (it), and I am after you.”

This structure can be followed somewhat literally by interpreting the first verb of “saying” as “suggesting,” that is, “suggesting that you buy it” (see Smith-Goodspeed). This type of rendering depends, however, to some extent upon the rendering of the verb “redeem.” If the verb which in Hebrew is often translated “redeem” is translated as “to help out as a relative” or “to do your duty as a relative,” one can translate “if you want to do your duty as a relative, then do so” (cf. New English Bible). In this particular context the specific duty of the relative was to buy the land, and therefore in many languages it is more satisfactory to follow Good News Translation and translate buy it in the presence of these men sitting here. It is also possible to combine the concept of being a relative with the buying of the land, by translating “if you want to do your duty as a relative in buying the land,” but this may turn out to be a rather heavy construction in some languages.

There may be confusion about the references of the word it in verse 4. In the first instance (to know about it), it may refer either to the field or to the fact that Naomi wanted to sell the field. In some languages one must make the reference specific, either as “I have decided to tell you about the field” or “… that Naomi wants to sell the field.” The second it (if you want it) is best rendered as “the field”; for example, “if you want the field.” The third and following uses of it are all reference to the field. In some languages “the field” must be used in all instances, but in most cases some kind of pronominal reference to the field is more natural.

Say so is better translated in some languages as “tell me” or even “tell us,” since the elders who were present served as witnesses to this agreement or transaction.

The right to buy it belongs first to you may need to be somewhat restructured as “you are the first one to have the right to buy it” or “you come ahead of me in being able to buy it.”

The man said is more appropriately translated in some languages as “the man responded,” since his statement is in response to the offer of Boaz.

I will buy it involves a form of the Hebrew verb which indicates a rather weak answer, not a particularly firm or definite one. See Joüon, par. 112-113. A firm, definite answer should be expressed by the qatal form. Compare Haller’s translation: “Ich will es schon lösen,” or BJ: “Oui, je veux bien racheter.” This subtly suggests that he may want to back out of the arrangement, even as he does in verse 6.

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 .