Again, the answer which Ruth gives in verse 13 represents a type of poetic structure. The verse consists of three lines with the following meter: 3 + 2, 2 + 2, 3 + 2; and the literal translation of these units may be given as // You are most gracious to me, my lord / for you have comforted me // and spoken kindly to / your maidservant // though I am not / one of your maidservants. // Though it would certainly be interesting to be able to reproduce something of the poetic structure of verse 13, rarely can one do so. Not only is the passage very short, but it does not have the type of content (elaborate figures of speech and condensation of information) which is typical of most poetry.

You are very kind to me may be rendered in some languages as “you are very good to me,” but in Hebrew this is literally “I have found favor in your eyes.” (See comments on verse 10.) Though this Hebrew expression does seem rather elaborate, it is essentially not different in meaning from a modern English expression, “Thank you, sir.” See 1 Samuel 1.18; 16.4; see also Joüon, Commentaire, page 56; so rightly A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel VII, 1914, ad loc.; W. Rudolph and G. Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc.; compare also Baumgartner, s.v. chen: “Ausdruck des Dankes.” The translators of New English Bible apparently felt that Ruth’s expression of thanks is sufficiently expressed in the remaining part of the verse, and therefore they employed for this first expression merely “Indeed, sir.”

Some translators feel that the imperfect tense of the Hebrew verb “to find” must refer to some future event or must express a subjunctive mood, but this seems far from necessary. For the translations, see NAB, BJ, and Dhorme. For the commentaries, see especially those of Haller and Hertzberg. For the instantaneous aspect of the yiqtol form of the verb matsaʾ, see Joüon, par. 113 and 111. The only English translation doing justice to this aspect is the one by Moffatt: “I am finding favour with you, my lord….”

What is rendered as sir in Good News Translation is in Hebrew literally “my lord” or “my master.” It is, however, merely a conventional term of respectful address, and the translator should employ the equivalent form in the receptor language. In some instances this will mean the use of an appropriate honorific or a form of address indicative of the difference in status between Ruth and Boaz. There may be certain complications in languages which employ the same word for “master” or “sir” that they use for “Yahweh.” These complications have been dealt with elsewhere. See also Translator’s Handbook on Luke on 1.6.

The phrase speaking gently represents what is in Hebrew literally “have spoken to the heart of your servant.” In Hebrew the use of the third person, “your servant,” emphasizes the respect which Ruth shows for Boaz. In modern English it is much better to use the first person, by speaking gently to me.

Speaking gently may be rendered in some languages as “speaking kindly to,” “speaking with good words to,” or even, idiomatically, as “speaking with smiling eyes,” or “speaking with a soft face.”

Even though I am not the equal of one of your own servants is literally in Hebrew “though I am not like one of your servants.” This expression makes perfectly good sense, and there seems to be no reason why one should follow some of the ancient versions which employ different textual bases. Septuagint reads: “See, I’ll be as one of your servants,” by deleting the negation marker loʾ. In an effort not to delete a word of the text, it has been proposed several times to change the vocalization into luʾ, a particle with the meaning “if only,” “oh that!” or “would that!” The whole results in a translation such as is found in NAB: “would indeed that I were a servant of yours!” A similar translation has been proposed in a note in NEB (it is impossible to know the source of the translation in the NEB). Haller, op. cit., ad loc., is in favor of this interpretation, whereas more recent commentators are rightly unwilling even to change the vocalization of the Hebrew text. To emphasize that this is an expression of Ruth’s humbleness, Good News Translation translates the equal of.

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 .

The man answered may be rendered as “the near relative replied” (New American Bible) or simply “he answered.” As in most instances there would be no doubt as to who is speaking.

I will give up my right to buy the field is literally in Hebrew “I cannot redeem for myself.” This could also be rendered as “I cannot help out as a relative” or “I cannot do my duty as a relative.” It may even be possible to employ a more specific rendering such as “I cannot take Ruth as a wife” or “I cannot buy the field.” This will depend largely upon the expressions which have been used for “redemption” in earlier contexts.

Because it would mean that my own children would not inherit it is somewhat more explicit than the Hebrew text itself, “in order that I may not ruin my own inheritance.” Compare also New English Bible “for I should risk losing my own patrimony,” and Moffatt “for fear of injuring my own inheritance.” It is also possible to translate simply as “because I would impoverish myself,” “because I would make myself poor,” or “because I myself would then become poor.”

You buy it reflects the Hebrew “take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem.” This phrase presents a number of difficulties in some languages and thus requires considerable restructuring; for example, “you buy the field just as I would have bought it but cannot,” “you can now buy the field though I cannot,” or “you yourself do what I cannot do, that is, you buy the field.”

I would rather not may be rendered as “I do not wish to buy the field” or “I prefer not to buy the field.”

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 .

The first sentence of verse 2 in Hebrew is “Now is not Boaz our kinsman, with whose servants you were?” The negative question marker indicates clearly that an affirmative answer is expected, so a translator is fully justified in turning this question into an emphatic affirmative statement. This may be done in several ways; for example, “Now there is our kinsman Boaz; you were with his girls” (New English Bible) or “Now here is our kinsman Boaz, with whose girls you have been working” (Moffatt).

The phrase Boaz … is our relative contains old information which has to be remembered. So a translation Remember that … is certainly accurate. One of the difficulties with the verb “remember” is that it may imply that someone is to remember what has been forgotten. This is not the implication of Naomi’s statement to Ruth. What she really means is “Bear in mind that” or “You must be aware that.” One may also translate “As you know, Boaz is one of our relatives.”

The Hebrew text does not specify working, but it is a perfectly normal addition. The Good News Translation rendering whose women you have been working with seems considerably more natural than the literal rendering “with whose women servants you were.”

For the interpretation of our relative, see the comments on 2.1. The Hebrew noun is slightly different from the one used in 2.1, but there is no evidence that the difference in form implies a significant difference in meaning. According to Joüon, par. 89, the feminine suffix -t in modaʿat should have “une nuance intensive,” so that the distinctive meaning of modaʿat (compared with modaʿ Ruth 2.1) should be that of “near kinsman.” Of the commentators, only Tamisier (op. cit., ad loc.) seems to support this interpretation. For the rare vocalization -anu of the possessive suffix, which may be due to the zaqef and the predicate character of the word, see Joüon, par. 94; Bauer-Leander, par. 29; and W. Gesenius-E. Kautzsch, Hebräische Grammatik, Leipzig, 1909, par. 91. It is therefore best to take the two forms as being synonymous.

Now listen is an idiomatic way of translating into English a Hebrew adverb traditionally rendered as “see” or “behold” (see Revised Standard Version and Smith-Goodspeed). Most modern versions (e.g., New American Bible, New English Bible, and Moffatt) simply omit the adverb, but there is a value in trying to reproduce something of the significance of this Hebrew expression, since it does serve to call attention to what immediately follows. Some languages have special particles which mean “pay attention now,” “mark this,” or “hear.”

The Good News Translation rendering This evening he will be threshing the barley is in Hebrew literally “he will be winnowing the threshing floor of barley.” This means “he will be winnowing the barley which has been threshed on the threshing floor.” Winnowing actually followed the threshing, which was the process of separating the grain from the straw by beating it with flails or having animals trample it. The straw was then lifted with wooden forks, leaving the grain mixed with chaff and dust on the floor. Winnowing consisted of throwing these into the west wind by means of a wooden shovel. The heavier grains would fall back on the threshing floor, while the wind would carry the dust and the chaff. For detailed information see Dalman op. cit., I, pages 511-512; III, pages 127-129. In Palestine the west wind normally begins to blow about two o’clock in the afternoon and continues through the evening and into the night. It is important that the wind not be too strong or blustery, and this may explain why the evening was regarded as the best time for winnowing. Contrary to Dalman, Hertzberg (op, cit., ad loc.) supposes that this operation took place in the afternoon, as the wind abates towards the evening. It is highly questionable, however, whether we can translate hallaylah with “afternoon.” The greeting by Hertzberg, exactly because of its anticipatory character, is no proof at all. Probably Boaz himself did not do the winnowing, but simply supervised his servants as they did the work. Perhaps Boaz stayed at the threshing floor during the night in order to guard it against thieves.

One of the reasons why Good News Translation does not specify “winnowing” is that such a process is rarely known or understood at the present time by English-speaking people. Furthermore, winnowing would be regarded as only part of the process of threshing, and therefore Good News Translation uses the more general term at this point. However, where winnowing is known, a specific term for this process should be employed, and it may be useful in some instances to add a marginal note to explain this process. Where a technical term for winnowing is lacking, it is sometimes possible to use a descriptive phrase such as “he will be shaking out the dirt from the barley,” See also Translator’s Handbook on Luke on 3.17. “he will be separating the grain from the chaff,” or “he will be separating the grain from the leaves.”

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 .

Verse 1 is essentially an introductory statement anticipating information which would seem to belong in verse 3. In fact, some translators would prefer to place this information in verse 3, where it seems more logical. However, there is value in having the contents of verse 1 at the very beginning of the chapter, because the role of Boaz is so important to the rest of the story and because the mention of Boaz as being a rich and influential man emphasizes so significantly the theme of restoration, which is central to the whole story. See D. F. Rauber, op. cit., pages 30-32. It is also important that the theme of restoration and “filling” be brought about by the event of harvest, which, in a sense, is a kind of celebration of the fertility of the earth and therefore an implied abundance.

The term relative is literally in the Hebrew text “acquaintance,” but the text was understood by the Masoretes as “a kinsman,” and this interpretation is preferable. It is not always easy to obtain a satisfactory term for relative, since it must designate a person who is related to one by some kind of blood tie but who is not a member of the immediate family. In this instance, of course, the blood relation is with the husband Elimelech, not with Naomi. In some languages the closest equivalent is “cousin.” In other languages the equivalent is “brother,” using a term which may designate all blood relatives in the same generation. On the other hand, a number of languages would simply say that Boaz belonged to “the same clan as Elimelech.”

A rich and influential man translates what is literally in Hebrew “a mighty man of valor,” but this expression involves two different components: (1) importance or prominence (see New American Bible) and (2) “wealth” (see New English Bible “well-to-do man”). In this context, the expression probably designates a social class of wealthy landlords Compare W. Baumgartner, s.v. chayil: “als Standesbezeichnung: (Gross-) Grundbesitzer” and G. Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc. See also E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und Nachbarstämme, 1960, pages 428-429, 500. (see Moffatt, “a man of large property”). One could use in this context a phrase such as “a wealthy landlord” or “a rich and important man.” In some societies the equivalent is “a wealthy elder,” in which “elder” would emphasize cultural prominence rather than age.

Who belonged to the family of her husband Elimelech may be rendered in a number of languages as “who belonged to the clan of Elimelech, the husband of Naomi” or “who was a part of the extended family of Elimelech, the husband of Naomi.” In some languages it is essential to indicate the fact that Elimelech is now dead; for example, “the past husband of Naomi” or “the deceased husband of Naomi.”

In dealing with terms for a clan, family, and tribe in Hebrew, there is a certain flexibility in meaning, but this is not the result of loose popular language. See Johs. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture I-II, London and Copenhagen, 1946, pages 46-60. We simply do not understand precisely the range of the distinctions in ancient Hebrew, and therefore the meanings seem at times to be somewhat fluid. In general, a term for “family” tends to designate the larger family, and a term for “clan” may be almost synonymous with “tribe.”

The name Boaz sounds in Hebrew something like “in him is power.” Other derivations have also been proposed, but there is certainly no evident derivation, The Greek transliteration booz/s favors an interpretation “in him is power.” Modern research, however, suggests a relation with Arabic bagz (“quickness”). See especially W. Baumgartner, s.v., and M. Noth, op. cit., page 228. The Hebrew word has to be distinguished from its homonym occurring in 1 Kings 7.21 and 2 Chronicles 3.17: Boaz, as a name of the left temple column. Only Baumgartner rightly makes a distinction between the two roots on the base of semantically obscure relations. nor is there any indication that the meaning of the name Boaz has special relevance for the development of this 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 .

Boaz’s statement to Ruth that she should stay there the rest of the night would imply that he wanted to protect Ruth from the dangers of the night, possibly an encounter with thieves or men who were drunk at the harvest season. Threshing and winnowing were not women’s work, See Dalman, op. cit., III, page 127. and Ruth’s presence at the threshing floor could certainly lead to a misinterpretation of her motives. Had she been detected, people would have probably thought that she was present as a prostitute.

In the morning … I will take the responsibility is in Hebrew literally, “in the morning, if he will do for you the kinsman’s part, well and good; but if he is not pleased to do for you the kinsman’s part, then I will do for you the kinsman’s part, as the LORD lives.” Some restructuring of this Hebrew sentence is almost imperative if the results are to be clear and stylistically acceptable. For one thing, it is not always necessary to repeat “to do for you the kinsman’s part.” This is generally better translated as “be responsible for you” or “have the duty of helping you.”

Part of the confusion and obscurity in Boaz’s statement results from the fact that he anticipated some type of legal action, but this is not specifically stated. Good News Translation makes reference to this by translating in the morning we will find out. It might even be possible to employ “we will find out before the tribunal” or “we will find out when this case is judged.”

It may seem rather strange that the closer relative is not specifically named. It is somewhat difficult to refer clearly to that person repeatedly without having a proper name with which to identify him. It is all the more necessary, therefore, that phrases such as “that man,” “that person,” or “that closer relative” be clearly marked.

For comments on the meaning of “to do the kinsman’s part,” see 2.20 and 3.9.

The idiomatic expression well and good (Good News Translation and New English Bible) is quite close to the Hebrew phrase. In the Haggada, the Hebrew tob (“good”), which is found in the normal subject position, is taken as the proper name of the closer relative, and this “Tob” has been made an elder brother of Boaz! This interpretation presupposes an ellipsis of the apodosis (compare Joüon, par. 167). In other languages it may be necessary to use an expression such as “let him do so,” “that will be fine,” or “that is all that I can do.”

Boaz’s assurance to Ruth that he will help in every possible way is concluded by an oath in which he uses the divine name, Yahweh, the … LORD. This may be introduced in a number of ways in different languages; for example, “I promise before the LORD,” “I make a strong promise, calling the LORD to listen,” “I promise, and the LORD will remember,” or “I promise, using the LORD’s name.”

The Hebrew oath formula, literally, “on the life of the LORD,” occurs frequently in the Old Testament. The formula in this particular form occurs 43 times in the Old Testament, 31 of which are in the books of Judges to 2 Kings. It is already found in the Lachish ostraca. See H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, I, Texte, 1966, nr. 193, line 9 and nr. 196, line 12. For the ancient Jewish people, an oath “on the life of the LORD” was the strongest possible statement of intent in which “he who swears puts the whole substance and strength of his soul into the words he speaks,” J. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture, I-II, page 407. since the oath was pronounced on the basis of God’s strength and with him as a participant. J. Pedersen, idem, III-IV, page 450.

In many languages, however, it would be quite meaningless to say “on the life of the LORD.” One must often employ a somewhat different expression; for example, “I swear it by the LORD” (New English Bible). The New English Bible phrase, however, does not communicate the sense of “life,” and for that reason Good News Translation employs a somewhat altered formula: I swear by the living LORD. In many languages it is quite impossible to speak of swearing by the life of someone. A more appropriate formula may be “I swear by the name of….” Therefore one could employ “I swear by the name of the living LORD.” According to Wendland, the Chewa equivalent is “It is on God,” the implication being that if the speaker proves to be lying, he will be punished by some extraordinary punishment sent by God, such as lightning. Wendland, The Cultural Factor, page 180.

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 .

At mealtime is the temporal setting for the event of speaking; this is in full accord with the syntactic division of the Hebrew text, though it is different from what is found in one of the ancient versions. In many Septuagint manuscripts the time setting is part of Boaz’s speech: “It is now time to eat.” It is always possible that ēdē hōra is a simple scribal error for tēj dē hōraj, a reading which occurs in some other Septuagint manuscripts. See also Joüon, par. 15. In some languages, however, one cannot employ a phrase such as “at mealtime.” Rather, a clause is needed, such as “when it was time to eat” or “when the people began to eat.”

For the term bread, see the comments on 1.6. This is essentially a term with generic meaning, often translatable as “food.” In some instances it may be better to translate it as “have something to eat.”

It is important to indicate in an expression such as have a piece of bread that this is something which Boaz is giving to Ruth. He is not commanding her to eat her own food, but rather is offering her something. This may be expressed in some languages as “let me give you a piece of bread,” “I want to give you a piece of bread,” or “take this piece of bread.”

Sauce represents a Hebrew expression which is often translated merely as “wine,” for the liquid seems to have been a kind of sour wine. Compare J. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, I, 1924, pages 102 ff., and G. Dalman, op. cit., III, page 18, and IV, page 388. The Syriac reading chalba (“milk”) can be interpreted as a scribal error for challa (“vinegar”). Such an error may have had a cultural background, as the custom described in Ruth 2.14 was not widespread. This is the only allusion to it in the Old Testament., A parallel solution is to be found in the BJ: “trempe ton morceau dans la piquette.”

In this context the expression the workers is literally “the reapers,” but this is not restricted to the male servants. It is better, therefore, to employ a general expression such as the workers, rather than place Ruth exclusively with the male servants or segregate her with the female servants. Such a separation would likewise be inappropriate in view of the fact that Boaz passed the roasted grain to Ruth, who evidently was not sitting far from him.

The verb translated passed, referring to Boaz’s act of giving roasted grain to Ruth, occurs only at this point in the Old Testament, and its meaning is uncertain. Even in late Hebrew the verb is very rare and used only in contexts describing that part of a vessel or jar which one touches in handling it. So Chagigah 22b (Talmud). For other references see Jastrow, s.v. tsabat. Translators of ancient versions did not understand the meaning of this Hebrew verb, and they read into it another Hebrew verb meaning “to heap up.” Septuagint and Vulgate. The Greek verb bounizō (which is found only in Septuagint Greek) may translate a Hebrew verb tsabar. It should, however, be noted that Septuagint uses a form of the same verb bounizō to translate the Hebrew noun tsebatim in 2.16. So it is not to be excluded that the Greek translator of Ruth thought of a verbal root tsbt in spite of its nonoccurrence in biblical Hebrew. The Chaldaic form of the verb (tsebat) is attested in the Talmud (Chullin 60a) with the meaning “to present.” Could the Greek translator have thought of such a meaning, and could he have marked the quantity which was presented by way of interpretation? The object alphiton may also have influenced the translation of the verb! The reading of the Vulgate congessit may come from the Greek. This reading is also found in some modern translations So, e.g., BJ: et Booz lui fit aussi un tas de grains rôtis. and is defended by some commentators who argue that the meaning of “to pass” would be incorrect in speaking of what Boaz did. So, e.g., R. Tamisier, op. cit., ad loc. However, the meaning of “to heap up” should not be employed. There is just a slight possibility that the verb had reference to some particular process in the preparation of the grain, Compare Gerleman (op. cit., ad loc), who refers to Ugaritic msbtm (“pair of tongs”) and Arabic and Ethiopic dabata (“to hold firmly”). but since there is no certainty with regard to the meaning of the term, the rendering of “to pass” seems to be the most satisfactory, at least until new evidence as to its meaning is found.

Roasted grain is very common food in the Middle East Compare Dalman, op. cit., III, pages 265-266. and is greatly appreciated in many other parts of the world. There should therefore be no difficulty in finding an appropriate equivalent.

Until she was satisfied should not be translated in such a way as to imply that she was in any way gluttonous; what is important is to indicate that Boaz was sufficiently generous to her to make her feel satisfied and happy. Until she was satisfied is often rendered “until she had had enough,” “until she felt good,” “until she had all she wanted,” or “until she was no longer hungry.”

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 .

The text of this verse in Hebrew is literally “and this was (the custom) This is the text of Targum, Syriac version, and Septuagint. Even if this was not the original Hebrew text, it is clearly implicit information which has to be made explicit in translation. in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm A piel instead of a hiphil or polel form as we should expect. Compare Gesenius-Kautzsch, par. 72. Moreover, the verbal form shows clearly Aramaic influences; see Joüon, par. 80. a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was (the manner of) attesting in Israel.” In rendering this verse it is necessary in a number of languages to make certain aspects explicit. One must often clearly indicate the objects of redeeming and exchanging. Good News Translation does this by stating a sale or an exchange of property, and then makes both parties explicit by speaking of seller and buyer. This interprets the ceremony of the shoe as a general witness of a contract for the sale of property. This is a possible interpretation and it is defended by some commentators. So A. R. S. Kennedy, The Book of Ruth, 1928, page 57, and also G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ruth, 1918, page 15. It may be, however, that the ceremony involving the shoe is not a general one to mark the sale of property, but it may be restricted to situations involving relatives and the abandonment of one’s normal responsibility or the transfer of the right of a relative to acquire property on behalf of a dead person. If that is the case, the near relative neither bought nor sold anything; it was only later that Boaz bought the property from Naomi, and in that instance there is no indication of the ceremony of passing a shoe. It is possible that the shoe was regarded as a kind of symbol of power in Israel, as elsewhere, Parallels to this extent have been cited from India, Egypt, and the Nuzi texts. See the literature quoted in Rowley, art. cit., notes 37-40. See also J. M. Mittelmann, Der altisraelitische Levirat, 1934, page 21. and the taking off of the sandal or shoe indicated the surrendering of power or rights. Within the Old Testament, the throwing of a sandal upon a piece of land did mean taking possession of it (Psalm 60.8 {Psalm 60.10 in the Hebrew text.}), and in the present instance the reversal of the process is true: taking off the sandal meant abandonment of any right to the property. For the complicated relationship between Ruth 4.7 and Deuteronomy 25.9, see especially Rowley, op. cit., page 86. It is, therefore, somewhat dangerous to be too explicit in rendering this verse, and it may be preferable to translate “whenever property was acquired and rights exchanged” or “whenever people took property or exchanged rights to property.” For the same reason, it may be preferable to state “a man” and “the other (party)” instead of seller and buyer.

There may be certain problems involved in obtaining a satisfactory rendering for sandal. Sometimes a term for sandal indicates the footwear of particularly poor persons or, in some situations, footwear used only for recreation or sport. If this is the case, it would be better to use a general designation for footwear which would include sandals.

In this way the Israelites showed that the matter was settled may require certain modifications in some languages; for example, “the people of Israel had this custom of showing that a matter was settled,” “… a transaction was finished,” “… the agreement was final,” or “… that the people had decided.”

The inclusion of the information in verse 7 indicates that this practice was not widely known at the time the Book of Ruth was written; otherwise it would not have been necessary to introduce this explanation. The necessity for making this kind of explanation concerning an apparently widespread custom of earlier times would suggest a considerable lapse of time between the events described and their being put into the literary form of this book.

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 .