Translation commentary on Ruth 2:15 - 2:16

Good News Translation rightly translates After she had left to go and gather grain. A translation such as “when she got up…” can be misleading, for it might imply that at this very time Boaz ordered his servants to treat her with special consideration, thus suggesting that Ruth was still present when Boaz gave the order to his servants. This, of course, was not the case, and therefore it may be better to translate the first clause as “When Ruth had gotten up to go gather grain” or “After Ruth had gone to gather grain.” One may also employ an independent sentence as a translation of this initial clause: “Ruth went off to glean,” followed by “then Boaz ordered his servants.”

The workers is literally in Hebrew “his young men,” but there is no special emphasis upon the age of Boaz’s workers, and therefore it is better to use some such expression as “his men” or “his servants.”

Ordered is literally in Hebrew “ordered, saying.” The use of two verbs for speaking is typical of Hebrew, but it is not at all necessary to reproduce both in a receptor language.

The direct discourse Boaz ordered the workers, “Let her…” may be changed to indirect discourse if that seems more natural in a receptor language; for example, “Boaz ordered his servants to let her gather grain….”

Let her gather grain renders a verbal form in Hebrew which expresses a possibility, See Joüon, par. 111 and 113. but in most languages this is appropriately indicated as permission: “Let her glean,” “If she wants to, she may glean,” or “Do not stop her from gleaning.” For comments on the expression where the bundles are lying (often translated literally as “among the sheaves”), see the comments on verse 7. In ancient times a reaper would grasp a handful of stalks with one hand and cut it with a sickle held in the other hand. The handfuls were left on the ground, and the women would gather them and bind them into bundles, technically called “sheaves.” These were stood upright on the ground for drying or curing. Later they might be brought to the threshing floor where the grain would be separated by having it beaten out or stamped out by cattle. See also Dalman, op. cit., III, pages 39-40, page 42, pages 48-49; H. Vogelstein, Landwirtschaft in Palästina zur Zeit der Mišnah, 1894, page 61, pages 74-75. Compare also J. G. Wetzstein in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 1873, page 273. Vulgate etiam si vobiscum metere voluerit (“even if she wants to harvest with you”) seems to have taken haʿamarim personally as a participle of a verb ʿamar. It is interesting to note that such a verb does not occur in Biblical Hebrew, though it is quite common in late Hebrew, where it seems to have the generic sense of “to harvest” and the specific meaning of “to bind and pile sheaves.” See references in Jastrow, s.v. Compare also the reading of the Vetus Latina: inter manuatores.

Normally, the people gleaning in a field would pick up only the heads of grain which were left behind by those who carried the sheaves to the barn or threshing floor. In this instance Ruth was given the special privilege of gathering among the sheaves or bundles or grain, and thus she was able to pick up what would normally have been picked up by the women servants. In this context, therefore, it may be helpful to have a supplementary note explaining precisely what the procedures were in ancient times, and thus the significance of Ruth’s receiving permission to gather grain even where the bundles were standing.

Don’t say anything to stop her refers primarily to verbal rebuke. It is essentially the same type of expression which concludes verse 16. One may render this expression as “don’t tell her not to do so,” “don’t scold her,” or “don’t speak angrily to her.”

Pull out some heads of grain from the bundles states explicitly what the reapers were instructed to do in order to provide Ruth with more grain than she would normally be able to pick up. The “bundle” in this instance would refer to the stalk the harvester held in one hand when he would cut with a sickle. Usually, only what would fall to the ground by chance would be available for those who were gleaning, but in this instance the harvesters get instructions to drop some of the stalks intentionally and leave them for Ruth. In order that this process may be perfectly clear, one may need to translate “pull out some of the heads of grain from the bundles which you have in your hand as you cut them, and leave some stalks for Ruth to pick up.” The admonition to “pull out some heads of grain” is quite emphatic in the Hebrew form, Hebrew has an absolute infinitive followed by an imperfect of the same verb shalal, which occurs only here in the Old Testament. For the absolute infinitive having the form of the construct infinitive, see Joüon, par. 123. The emphasis on the action is stronger when the infinitive is placed before the finite form. See Joüon, par. 123. Septuagint translated the verbal forms twice, probably to mark the two events of “holding in one’s hand” and “throwing sideways.” In the second case, some minuscules have a deviating reading soreusate, from a verb meaning “to heap one thing on another,” which might well be a translation of a Hebrew verb salal (“cast up”). and it can therefore be translated in some languages as “you shall by all means pull out … for her.”

Leave them for her to pick up may need to be somewhat more explicit in some languages as “leave them for her to find and pick up.” One should not imply that the reapers were to be careless in their work so that Ruth would have to pick up what they unintentionally left.

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:8

The introductory particle translated So may be rendered in some languages as “Accordingly.” The action in verse 8 illustrates exactly the custom described in verse 7. The relation between the two verses may be indicated by “in accordance with this” or “just like that.”

The imperative expression You buy it may be more appropriately expressed as permission in some languages; for example, “You may buy it yourself,” “It is now your privilege to buy it,” “It is now your responsibility to buy it,” or “It is now up to you to buy it.”

The final phrase of verse 8, and gave it to Boaz, does not occur in the Hebrew text, but it is attested by some early translations. So Septuagint and Arabic version. This phrase may reflect the wording of a similar expression in verse 7, So Dhorme, op. cit., ad loc. but it may also indicate that an original Hebrew phrase has been lost. This seems to be Haller’s opinion. Regardless of what may or may not have been the original Hebrew text, in some languages the narrative style requires such an addition. One may also wish to add at this point a marginal note to indicate that this phrase occurs in all Greek manuscripts but is lacking in the Hebrew text. Apart from TEV, no modern translation consulted has this reading.

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:12 - 1:13

The expression Go back home represents the combination of two Hebrew verbs often translated “turn back … go your way.” These verbs do not represent two different movements, See Brockelmann, Grundriß II, par. 294. but simply emphasize the meaning of returning. Tamisier translates correctly “retournez.”

In the Hebrew text of verse 12 there is no indication of a goal of hope (cf. New American Bible “and even if I could offer any hopes”). There are, of course, two different possibilities for a goal of hope, either the hope of marrying (Moffatt) or the hope of having a child (New English Bible). The more immediate element in the context would seem to be marrying or having a husband, but since the focus is not on the husband but on having sons, it is also possible to speak of “hope of having sons.”

In the Hebrew text the expression rendered got married tonight is a more or less direct reference to the act of sexual intercourse, but it is euphemistically stated. Some ancient translators, however, felt that it was not euphemistic enough, and so they omitted tonight. So Septuagint and Syriac version. Others, however, translated quite realistically. So in some Greek manuscripts: kai egenomēn lelakkōmenē andri. This is even true when their translation was based on a misreading chalilah for hallaylah. In some languages the closest and most appropriate equivalent would be “even if I should sleep with a husband tonight” The euphemism used in NEB, “if I were to marry this night,” has the disadvantage of not focusing on sexual intercourse. or “even if a husband should cause me to conceive tonight.”

The Hebrew term involved in the expression keep you from marrying occurs only here in the Old Testament, though it is frequent in later rabbinic literature. See M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, I, II, New York, 1950, s.v. ʾagan. In this context one might render the verb as “shut yourselves off from marrying” or “deprive yourselves of marrying.”

Since the questions posed by Naomi in verse 13 are regarded not as real questions but as rhetorical exclamations of something which is quite impossible, it is frequently preferable to render them as strong negative statements; for example, “If I should have a husband tonight and then give birth to sons, you surely would not wait until they had grown up. You would not refrain from marrying someone else.”

The clause you know that’s impossible renders a negative particle in Hebrew which presupposes a verbal form which is not made explicit. See Joüon, par. 160 and 161. The negation may refer either to the impossibility of Naomi’s having sons for her daughters-in-law to marry, or it may be a negative command advising the daughters not to accompany her.

The clause The LORD has turned against me occurs in the Hebrew text at the end of verse 13, following a clause which may have either of two meanings: (1) “I am terribly sorry for you” or (2) “my lot is worse than yours.” Both interpretations are already present in the Septuagint tradition. For the elliptic comparison in the first, see Joüon, par. 141. Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, and Good News Translation follow the first interpretation, while Moffatt and New English Bible favor the second. One can argue that because of the clause The LORD has turned against me the second interpretation is to be preferred, but that does not necessarily follow. If the order of clauses is reversed, as in Good News Translation, the meaning is quite clear and the relation between the events is logical, since it was evidently adversity brought on by the LORD which caused Naomi to feel so sorry for her daughters-in-law. This is, of course, a reference to the death of the two sons.

In the Hebrew text the phrase “the hand of the LORD” is a figurative expression to identify the power of the LORD. In most instances it is better to drop this figure of speech and say simply The LORD has turned against me rather than “the hand of the LORD has gone against me.”

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:4

Lift the covers renders what is in Hebrew literally “uncover the place of his feet.” The meaning of what Ruth did was essentially to ask for Boaz’s protection. So rightly Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc.: “sich als Bittstellerin in seinen Schutz begeben.” Of course, the idea of a marriage proposal may very well have been implicit in the act, Compare George A. F. Knight, Ruth and Jonah (The Torch Bible Commentaries), 1960, ad loc.: “Ruth’s act in lying at Boaz’s feet is not to be judged an indelicate act from our standard of ethical thinking. Such was the accepted manner in which a woman could propose marriage to a man.” However, it surely was a hazardous act from the standard of Jewish ethical thinking. As we have to do with an isolated instance in the Old Testament, it may be going too far to speak of an “accepted manner.” but there is no clear evidence that this expression is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as has been suggested by some scholars. For H. G. May (JRAS, 1939, pages 75 ff.) and W. E. Staples (k The Book of Ruth, AJSL 53, 1937, pages 153 ff.), this is an instance of sacred prostitution which took place at Bethlehem’s high place. The six measures of barley which Boaz gave to Ruth are interpreted as the hire of a sacred prostitute. Needless to say that such an interpretation makes the whole story incoherent. On the other hand, the Hebrew terms translated “uncover,” “feet,” and “lie down” are often associated with sexual acts, and therefore the expression lends itself to this type of interpretation. It must be said that most verbs in this verse are frequently used as euphemisms for sexual intercourse in other contexts as: yadaʿ, shakab, boʾ, galah. Though the noun margelot is only found once outside the book of Ruth (in Daniel 10.6, where it is no euphemism), it is easily associated with a noun as raglayim, which is used as a euphemism for the male sex organ in, e.g., Exodus 4.25. Even some ancient translators tried in several ways to weaken or alter the meaning. The Syriac translator did so in omitting the expression “uncovered” and in only stating: “lie down at his feet.” The Targum has an additional phrase in the last part of the verse: “He will tell you through his wisdom what to do.”

Since it is altogether possible that what Ruth did may be misunderstood in a receptor culture, it is appropriate to have some marginal note at this point indicating that what Ruth did was a symbolic way of asking for protection. In fact, in some translations the meaning of the act is incorporated into the text itself, for example, “lift up the cover at his feet to ask for his protection.” This may be done on the basis that the act itself was a recognized symbol for asking for security.

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:3

Since verse 3 begins with the result of what was anticipated in the dialogue between Ruth and Naomi, it is appropriate to introduce it by a particle such as So. In other languages the equivalent may be “Therefore,” “As a result,” or “And so then.”

It may be important in some languages to specify more clearly the kind of fields; for example, “fields of grain” or “fields where grain was being cut” (the equivalent of “harvest fields”).

The workers in this context would in some languages be “the harvesters,” “the men cutting the grain,” or “the men gathering the grain.”

Picking up the heads of grain may be ambiguous in some languages, since it might seem to imply that Ruth was likewise harvesting. Therefore it may be necessary to repeat what has already been said in verse 2, namely, “picking up heads of grain which had been left.”

Verse 3 is to some extent repetitious of what has already been included in verses 1 and 2. This fact was already sensed by some ancient translators. The second verb in the sequence “set forth-went-gleaned” is omitted in most Septuagint manuscripts, Peshitta, and Vulgate. It is also possible to understand the first part of verse 3 as a conclusion to verse 2, while the second part of the verse could be the introduction to the section beginning with verse 4. On the other hand, the two parts of verse 3 can be closely combined as in New American Bible: “The field she entered to glean after the harvesters happened to be the section belonging to Boaz of the clan of Elimelech.” Though NAB’s translation, “The field she entered to glean after the harvesters happened to be the section belonging to Boaz of the clan of Elimelech,” disregards the place of the disjunctive accent atnach.

It so happened translates what is in Hebrew more or less literally “her chance lighted upon a field.” This Hebrew construction occurs elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes 2.14-15, in a context where the noun is normally rendered as “fate.” It is, however, questionable whether any distinction can be made between “chance” and “fate” in the Hebrew. Hebrew miqreh does occur in other places (1 Sam 6.9; 20.26) with the meaning “accident,” but the construction wayyiqer miqreh is typical of Ecclesiastes (see the dictionaries). This should warn one against making too artificial (and too modern!) a distinction between the meanings in Ruth and Ecclesiastes. Tamisier’s statement (op. cit., ad loc.), “cette circonstance fortuite élimine tout plan préconçu,” may be true on the sentence level; it is certainly not true on the level of the discourse. Gerleman (op. cit., ad loc.) first makes the distinction between “chance” and “fate” and then abolishes the same distinction in saying that Yahweh dictates the “chance.” He is nevertheless right, only not in his formulation, since he fails to reason on the two different levels, that of sentence and that of discourse. Septuagint in vocalizing miqreh instead of miqreha (“chance” for “her chance”) and in reading thus periptomati (by “lucky chance”) [see H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1951, s.v.] may have been aware of the ambiguity of the Hebrew expression and may have solved the problem on the sentence level. On the other hand, some translations, though perhaps not consciously, operate on two levels at the same time. So Dhorme “sa chance voulut” and BJ “sa chance la conduisit.” This is a happy solution in French, but in a number of languages, where one cannot have an inanimate subject of an event, it cannot be applied.

The context of the Book of Ruth would seem to indicate clearly that people are not in a position to change the course of history and, therefore, that it is really not by chance that Ruth arrives at the field of Boaz. It is evidently the action of Yahweh himself which determines such “happenings.” As a result, most modern English versions use expressions such as “happened” (Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, New American Bible), but in a sense this may be said not to do full justice to the Hebrew text. On the other hand, it would be out of keeping with the context to emphasize too explicitly the aspect of “chance.” Moffatt has in this context “it was her fortune to come upon,” and one might very well translate as “she was fortunate to come upon.” It would not be appropriate merely to translate: “she had the good luck to go to 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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:15

The Hebrew text has only “he said,” but it is usually necessary at this point to be quite specific that it is Boaz who speaks to Ruth. Therefore Good News Translation has Boaz said to her. The Syriac version has “Boaz said to her.” Some Septuagint manuscripts read “he said to her.” Other Septuagint manuscripts are even more specific: “he said to Ruth.”

The Hebrew word translated here as cloak occurs only in this passage and in Isaiah 3.22. Early translations usually employ a rendering such as “mantle” (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, and Smith-Goodspeed), whereas more recent translations tend to prefer “cloak” (New American Bible, New English Bible, and Good News Translation). It is clear from the weight that she was to carry in this garment that it could not have been a thin veil. Probably it was a loose, sleeveless outer garment of relatively heavy cloth See Gesenius-Buhl, s.v. mitpachat: “ein großes Umschlagetuch der Frauen.” Compare also Dalman, op. cit., V, page 332. and therefore appropriate to use in carrying a heavy load of barley.

Almost fifty pounds of barley translates a Hebrew expression which is simply “six (measures) of barley.” There is no specific indication in the Hebrew text as to what measure is involved, but the ellipsis of words for measure is quite frequent in Hebrew. See Joüon, par. 142; Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, par. 85. It is possible to say “six measures of barley” (Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, and New English Bible), but this is not very useful in determining the amount involved. Some scholars Especially Joüon and Brockelmann. believe that this is a reference to the ephah, but six ephah would amount to approximately 240 liters (well over 500 pounds), an impossible load for Ruth to carry back to the city. It is possible that the measurement was a seʾah (one-third of an ephah) in which case the total capacity would be approximately 80 liters (about 200 pounds). Since some have felt that even this was too heavy a weight for Ruth to carry, this hypothesis has not found large support. That is the interpretation of the Targum, which is followed by Hertzberg. According to some scholars, a sturdy female peasant could carry that much. However, even for the Targum translator the weight must have been exceptional, for he states that God gave Ruth the strength to carry this burden because she would be the ancestress of the Messiah! Others have concluded that the measure was an ʿomer, which would be equal to one-tenth of an ephah, or approximately 24 liters (somewhat over 50 pounds). This is the interpretation accepted by a majority of modern scholars. So Gerleman, Haller, and the Century Bible, op. cit., ad loc. This opinion is also shared by A. Vincent (op. cit., ad loc.) and very probably by Th. J. Meek (in Smith-Goodspeed), where “six homers” must be a transcription error for “six omers,” the chomer being equal to 10 ephah! It does seem important to indicate that this was an impressive amount of barley—not merely from the fact that Boaz had to help her lift it, but because it was evidently designed to impress both Ruth and Naomi with Boaz’s generosity and his determination to help them in every way that he could.

The majority of Hebrew manuscripts actually have “he (that is, Boaz) went back to town,” but the feminine form also occurs in some Hebrew manuscripts, and the reading “she went back to town” is preferred by a majority of modern scholars and translators. From the viewpoint of textual scholars, “Boaz went back to town” is preferred, but the other reading is not impossible. Of modern translations only Dhorme and NAB make Boaz the subject of the event. Compare NAB: “he poured out six measures of barley, helped her lift the bundle and left for the city.” Of modern commentators only Gerleman seems to be in favor of this more difficult reading. The feminine preformative is found in 17 manuscripts Kennicott and in 37 manuscripts de Rossi and is further supported by the Syriac version and the Vulgate. However, Barthélemy favors the more difficult reading with a “C” evaluation, page 133.

According to verse 3, Ruth went down to the threshing floor. Her return to town implies the opposite movement, “Ruth went up to town.” For languages in which careful distinctions in geographical movement are specified, it is important to reflect this detail.

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:17

As already noted, verse 17 concludes the account of Ruth’s gathering grain in the field of Boaz. It begins with a particle translated So, which indicates result and which may be translated in some languages “As a result,” “And so at the end,” or “And thus finally.”

Until evening is most generally rendered “until the sun went down,” “until the sun could be seen no longer,” or “until the sun had disappeared.”

The Hebrew verb translated beaten … out occurs elsewhere only in Judges 6.11 and in Isaiah 28.27, where it has this same literal meaning of threshing out small quantities of grain by knocking them loose from the stalk by means of a curved stick, club, or wooden hammer. See Dalman, op. cit., III, page 92. One ancient version makes the instrument explicit by translating “she beat with a stick what she had gleaned.” So Septuagint in using the Greek verb rabdizo. Another translation makes explicit both the instrument and the two events of hitting the heads of barley and driving out the grain: “she beat with a stick what she had gleaned and drove out the grains.” So the Vulgate reading: et quae collegerat virga caedens et excutiens. The latter translation is an excellent descriptive model for those languages which lack a technical term for “beating out.” In some instances, however, one must use a causative expression, such as “cause to fall out” or “cause to become loose.”

Though there is no indication of precisely where this threshing takes place, it no doubt was done in the field. Compare P. Perdrizet’s remark in Syria, 1938, page 48: “Les moissonneurs de Syrie ne ramassent pas les gerbes en meules; ils battent le blé sitôt coupé au moyen de rouleaux de pierre ou de traîneaux garnis par-dessous de silex tranchants; ou, si la récolte est minime, avec une baguette, comme on le voit faire dans la Bible à Ruth la Moabite pour les épis qu’elle avait glanés.” The Hebrew expression which is rendered in Good News Translation as nearly twenty-five pounds is literally “about an ephah of barley,” but there is no certainty as to what this measurement implied. Some scholars believe that it was approximately 40 liters; See R. G. Bratcher, “Weights, money, measures and time,” The Bible Translator 10 (1959):169, 173; J. Trinquet, “Métrologie biblique,” Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris, 1928- , t. 5, col. 1221-1238. others agree that the ephah was approximately 40 liters during the Hellenistic period, but cannot say what it was earlier. So, e.g., R. Tamisier, op. cit., ad loc.; A. G. Barrois, Manuel d’archéologie biblique, I, II, 1939-1953. The reference here is to II, page 250. Archaeological findings may some day provide us with reliable information, See R. de Vaux, op. cit., pages 306, 307. Our lack of knowledge condemns “tout essai de donner, pour la période de l’Ancien Testament, un tableau d’équivalence avec notre système moderne” (page 306). but with the information now available it is impossible to give an exact equivalent of the ephah of the time of Ruth. The translator, however, must employ something in his text, and there are three major possibilities: (1) he may simply transliterate the Hebrew measure, with or without some explanatory note; (2) he may employ a receptor-language term which represents a measure more or less equivalent to the Hebrew term; or (3) he may use a combination of the source-language term as well as some receptor-language equivalent, as was done in one of the ancient versions. So Vulgate: invenit hordei quasi oephi mensuram id est tres modios. In keeping with the first procedure, he would simply use “ephah” in the text (see New American Bible), with possibly a footnote or a symbol to show that it is explained in a table of weights and measures or glossary. In keeping with the second procedure, the translator could use a second term such as “bushel” (see New English Bible and Moffatt). Following the third procedure, he would use an expression such as “it was about an ephah, that is to say, a basketful of barley.” In this case the term for “basket” would have to be a measure essentially equivalent to an ephah in the Hellenistic period, that is about 40 liters or 40 quarts. For many speakers of English the term “bushel” is a rarity, and quantities of grain are more often described in terms of weight rather than bulk. For this reason Good News Translation uses the expression nearly twenty-five pounds. In some instances translators may simply employ a rendering which implies that the amount of grain was considerable: “a good measure of grain” or “a lot of grain.” That would emphasize the fact that this was an abundant result for the day’s work. Such a translation has interesting ancient support. The Syriac version states, in a qualitative way, “a full measure.”

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:9

The sequence of events is clearly marked here by the particle Then, which may be rendered somewhat more specifically in some languages as “and next” or “and after that.”

And all the others there is in Hebrew literally “and all the people.” It will be necessary to understand with one manuscript of Wright, Septuagint, Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate: “and to all the people.” This does not refer to all the people of the town, but to “all the people present” or “all those who were there.” This is appropriately rendered in English as all the others there.

You are all witnesses today may be translated in some languages as “You have all seen today.” In other languages, however, the role of a witness must be explained not only in terms of what people have seen, but also what they can later confirm; for example, “You have all seen today that I have bought from Naomi everything that belonged to Elimelech and to Chilion and Mahlon, and later you can tell folks that you have seen this happen” or “You have all seen today, and later you can explain how I have bought from Naomi everything….”

That I have bought indicates that the action belongs to the past, but the Hebrew tense of the verb shows quite clearly that this is an action which is accomplished at the very moment the words are spoken See Joüon, par. 112-113: “j’acquiers (hic et nunc, par mes paroles).” (cf. Smith-Goodspeed “I am buying”).

From Naomi is in Hebrew literally “at (from) the hand of Naomi.” This is a typical Hebrew idiom which can rarely be translated literally into other languages. The “hand” is a symbol for possession.

The relation of Chilion and Mahlon to the property is somewhat different from that of Elimelech, since the two sons inherited from their father. This must be made somewhat more explicit in some languages as “everything that belonged first to Elimelech, and accordingly to Chilion and Mahlon” or, even more explicitly, “everything that belonged first to Elimelech and then to his sons, Chilion and Mahlon.”

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 .