Translation commentary on Ruth 1:21

This verse makes quite explicit the theme of “emptiness,” but it may be difficult to translate into some languages. Rarely can one talk about “having plenty” without indicating what is involved: things, family, relatives, prestige, etc. Sometimes one can translate “When I left I had much, but the LORD has brought me back having nothing.” One may in some instances employ the contrast between “being rich” and “now being poor.” In other cases metaphorical expressions may be employed; for example, “When I left, my hands were full, but the LORD has brought me back with my hands empty.” The expression in Bali is “With the spear I went out, and with the empty shaft I returned home again.” Adolf Vielhauer, The Bible Translator 7 (1956):130.

The rhetorical question at the end of verse 21 may be more effectively rendered in some languages as a strong negative; for example, “Do not call me the Happy One.” The Hebrew text at this point has “Naomi,” but it may be preferable to use the meaning of the name rather than the name itself, since this is the way in which the speaker (Naomi) here uses it.

In the Hebrew text LORD is the subject of condemned me, and Shaddai is the subject of sent me trouble. If a translation follows the Hebrew text literally, it may give the impression that the LORD and the Almighty are two different persons. In reality, the second clause is only a parallel expression used to intensify the meaning of the first clause. Accordingly, Good News Translation combines LORD and Almighty and makes them the single subject of the two verbs.

The verb translated condemned represents a Hebrew term which may be translated as “testified against me.” Revised Standard Version at this point follows versional evidence in using a reading which means “afflicted.” However, there seems to be clear evidence that the Hebrew text should be followed at this point (see New English Bible and New American Bible). RSV follows Septuagint, Syriac version, and Vulgate, all of them reading a piel of a verb ʿanah III, meaning “to mishandle,” “to afflict.” However, the Hebrew ʿanah I with its qal, meaning “to pronounce,” “to testify,” makes good sense. Moreover, only this verb can be constructed with the preposition be. A translation such as “has testified against me” or even “has condemned me” presupposes a certain guilt on the part of Naomi, but this is not made clear in the text. If the terms employed in a receptor language are too specific in this connection, it may be wise to use a more general expression; for example, “the LORD has turned against me.”

Sent me trouble may be rendered in some languages as “caused me to suffer.”

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 3:11

Good News Translation shows the order of the sentences of the source text. The Hebrew order is: (1) “don’t be afraid”; (2) “I will do everything you ask”; (3) “all people know that you are a good woman.” However, the object of Ruth’s fear is not the possibility of Boaz’s refusing help to her, but the possibility that the people of the town will oppose her because she is of Moabite origin. See Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc.: “Sie soll auch keine Angst haben, daß man ‘im Tor’ wegen ihrer moabitischen Herkunft Einwände erheben wird.” A change in the order of clauses seems essential in order to make the relation more explicit than in Good News Translation. One may translate, for example: “Dear woman, do not be afraid, for everyone in town knows that you are a good woman. I will do….”

Everyone in town renders a Hebrew expression which is literally “the whole gate of my people.” The gate is mentioned here as the center of the social life of the community. For its importance, see the comments on 4.1 and compare a parallel expression in 4.10. In this type of context “gate” refers to the city, and “the whole gate” is a reference to the whole city in the sense of “all the people of the city” or “all of the citizens.” This expression occurs only here in the Old Testament, but its meaning is quite certain. There seems no reason to think that this is a specific reference to some council of the people, as is suggested by the Smith-Goodspeed translation. It is rare that one can employ a term for “gate” in reference to a city, particularly since in most parts of the world cities no longer have gates. However, in certain ancient translations a term for gate has been retained with certain interesting possibilities of interpretation. A good example of this is the translation of the Vulgate: omnis populus qui habitat intra portas urbis meae. It is not completely clear how the Greek translation has to be evaluated. Septuagint has pasa phulē laou mou, in which phulē (“race, tribe”) could be a defective writing of pulē (“gate”). This is, for example, Gerleman’s interpretation. On the other hand, phulē may have the meaning of “a body of men united by local habitation” (see Liddell-Scott, s.v.), so that the Greek could be translated as “the whole body of my people” (i.e., “townspeople”). Is pulē/phulē an intentional pun of the Greek translator? Compare, however, the Syriac reading: “the whole tribe of our people.”

In Hebrew the adjective fine implies ability, efficiency, and moral worth. New English Bible emphasizes the first aspect of meaning by translating “a capable woman,” but most other translations prefer to indicate the factor of moral worth or value; for example, “a worthy woman,” “a good woman,” or a fine woman. The Targum’s qualification tsaddiqtaʾ presupposes a meaning “pious” in view of the following addition: “and you have the power to bear the yoke of the divine commandments.”

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 2:11 - 2:12

These verses form an important unit, even though the structure of verse 11 is normal prose, whereas verse 12 has a type of poetic structure. It consists of two lines with the meter 3 + 3; 3 + 2 + 2, with the following units: // The LORD recompense you for what you have done / and a full reward be given to you // by the LORD the God of Israel / under whose wings / you have come to take refuge. // If one can conveniently reproduce in translation something of the poetic structure of verse 12, this is fine; but it is seldom that one can do justice to such a short poetic portion embedded within what is essentially a prose structure.

The expression I have heard about everything may be rendered in some languages as “people have told me about.”

Your own country represents a Hebrew expression which may be rendered as “land of your kindred” or “land of your birth.” It occurs only three times in the patriarchal stories (Gen 11.28; 24.7; 31.13) and three times in the prophets (Jer 22.10; 46.16; Ezek 22.15). In some languages an equivalent is “the place where you were born” or “the land of your tribe.” Even a translation such as “your tribe” may be employed. This is the translation found in the Syriac version.

In some languages it may be necessary to employ two verbs for left, since the action of leaving one’s father and mother may be quite different from that of leaving one’s own country. In the first instance one may need to say “You left behind your father and mother,” and in the second instance “you departed from your own country.”

A people you had never known before is in some languages “a new people” or “a people that you were not acquainted with previously.” It is important to avoid the implication that Ruth had never known about such people. It is the act of experiencing which is important in this context. Therefore in some languages one must translate “among a people that you have never before had any dealings with” or “among a people with whom you have never lived before.”

In some languages verse 12 may require considerable restructuring. This has already been done in one of the ancient versions: “The LORD, the God of Israel, reward your deed; he, under whose wings you have come for refuge, give you a full reward.” This is the text according to the Syriac version. The difficult construction “may your reward be full from the LORD, the God of Israel” has been transformed into “may he give you a full reward,” whereas the nominal phrase “the God of Israel” has been added in apposition to the subject “LORD” in the first clause. But in many languages it is difficult to use this type of third-person request; therefore one must often have some introductory expression such as “pray,” “entreat,” or “request”; for example, “I pray that the LORD will reward you.”

In a number of languages reward is equivalent to “pay you in exchange,” “give you a prize for,” or “compensate you in exchange for”; for example, “I pray that the LORD will pay you back for all that you have done,” “… give you a gift…,” “… show a special favor….” In this context it is important to note that it must be a positive benefit or gift and not some kind of punishment, which would often be the interpretation of the expression “pay you back for what you have done.”

To whom you have come for protection is literally in Hebrew “under whose wings you have come to take refuge.” It is not clear to what kind of imagery the “wings” belong. One normally thinks of the wings of a bird, but some commentators believe that this is a reference to the wings of the cherubim, So Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc. or even the wings of the winged sun-disk. Compare A. Lods, op. cit., pages 534-535: “Exceptionnellement Yahvé était représenté par le disque ailé, et on lui appliquait les métaphores de la théologie solaire.” It is even possible that the interpretation of wings of a bird and wings of the cherubim were both associated with this Hebrew phrase from a very early time, so that the two images in a sense reinforced each other. Compare J. Ridderbos, De Psalmen I, Kampen, 1955, on Psalm 17.8. The use of a verb meaning “to cover” or “to seek shelter” does, of course, suggest the imagery of the bird. See also Translator’s Handbook on Luke on 13.34. Some persons, however, have proposed to change the imagery completely and to render the Hebrew word not as “wings” but as “skirts.” So in The Century Bible, a new edition based on the RSV, edited by John Gray, 1967, pages 414-415. Though this is a possible translation, it is a highly improbable one. It is true that the word occurs with this meaning in 3.9, where Ruth asks Boaz to spread his skirt over her. But there the symbolism of the act implies both protection and union. On the other hand, it is only once stated in the Old Testament that the LORD spreads his skirt over someone, but that is in the highly figurative speech of Ezekiel 16.8, where the relation between Yahweh and Israel is described in a wedding metaphor. On the contrary, the metaphor of the wings having Yahweh as the object of the comparison is quite frequent in poetic literature, though limited to the Psalms: 17.8; 36.8; 57.2; 61.5; 63.8; 91.4. The basis for the comparison is made quite clear in the phrase “to take refuge.” Because of this, it is sometimes possible to retain the expression “under whose wings,” because one can state precisely what this figure of speech implies; for example, “may the LORD give you a full reward, since you have come to him to seek shelter as under the wings of a bird.”

Though the retention of the figure of speech “under his wings” is very desirable, it is sometimes very difficult to understand, particularly in this kind of very short poetic structure. For that reason Good News Translation uses to whom you have come for protection.

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 4:5

A particle such as Very well to introduce the direct discourse in verse 5 is particularly important, not only to mark the sequence of events, but to show at this point an abrupt shift in the argumentation. In some languages it might be appropriate to have a particle before Boaz said, which would suggest something like “then to everyone’s surprise” or “but then.” This may be very useful in marking the complete change in Boaz’s presentation of the issue.

Then you are also buying Ruth, the Moabite widow is in Hebrew literally “you are also acquiring (from) Ruth the Moabitess, With qere one should read qanitah, and with the Old Latin, Syriac, and Vulgate one should read weʾet instead of meʾet, a scribal error probably due to dittography. the dead man’s (wife).” Some English translations prefer to retain the verb “buying,” so that they render “you are also buying Ruth” (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, and Smith-Goodspeed). It is the same Hebrew verb used in the expression buy the field, but this Hebrew verb does not mean specifically “buy” in both contexts, for in Hebrew societies one did not “buy” a wife. The appropriate meaning of this verb in the second context is “to acquire.” In fact, it could be argued that the diagnostic component of “commercial operation” is absent from the Hebrew root in all its occurrences in chapter 4, because the owner is and remains Elimelech’s clan, to which Boaz also belongs. In that case one should also speak of “acquiring the field.” Cf. Theo R. Schneider, “Translating Ruth 4.1-10 among the Tsonga people,” The Bible Translator 33 (1982):301-309.

Essentially the nearest relative had two distinct responsibilities: one was to preserve the estate of Elimelech (this would be done by buying the field in order to keep it in the family), and the other was to acquire the widow of Elimelech’s son Mahlon. L. Köhler (“Ruth,” Schweizerische Theologische Zeitschrift 37, 1920) wants to omit the whole phrase “and from Ruth the Moabitess,” arguing that the dead man concerned is Elimelech, and the widow who has to be married is Naomi. In this he is followed by Haller. Already Volz (TLZ 26, 1901, cols. 348-349) was of the opinion that in the original form of the story Naomi married Boaz. However, this view is unacceptable. Even Joüon (op. cit., page 10) may not be right in stating that Ruth replaced Naomi legally. Finally, the nearest relative to Elimelech was also the nearest relative to Mahlon, and the levirate marriage could only make sense in relation to the younger of the two widows.

For the Hebrew phrase “the dead man’s (wife)” the focus is upon the wife, and therefore “widow” is an appropriate translation, leaving “the dead man’s” as implicit information.

When the Hebrew text says “you are also acquiring Ruth,” this is equivalent to saying “you must marry Ruth.” This aspect of the obligation is expressed in Good News Translation simply as then you are also buying Ruth, the Moabite widow.

So that the field will stay in the dead man’s family is in Hebrew literally “in order to raise the name of the dead to his inheritance.” Basically there are two ideas combined in this Hebrew expression. (1) The aim of the levirate marriage was “to raise a child (son) for the dead.” In this way a man was given a kind of continuing life through his sons. (2) The name of the dead is restored to his inheritance through the fact that the property becomes the property of the child of the widow who is married, rather than becoming the personal asset of the one who acquires the property on behalf of the dead husband. In other words, the property would belong not to the closest relative, but to the son of the widow. Furthermore, the son would be regarded as the son of the widow’s deceased husband rather than as the son of the person who had redeemed the property and married the widow. By fulfilling the responsibility of the closest kin, a person would in essence be diminishing his own property right and estate, and thus depriving his other children of a portion of their inheritance.

In order to make all of these aspects quite explicit, one could translate this passage as “you must also marry Ruth, the Moabite widow, and you must raise a child (a son) by her so that the field will stay in the dead man’s family.”

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 1:8

Stay with your mothers involves a rather surprising Hebrew expression referring to “the mother’s house”; that is to say, each daughter-in-law was instructed to return to her mother’s house, not to the home of her father, which one would normally expect (see, for example, Gen 38.11; Lev 22.13; Num 30.16; Deu 22.21; Judges 19.2, 3). In fact, one ancient version has changed the text at this point to read “to the house of your father,” This is the reading of the Codex Alexandrinus and of some other Septuagint manuscripts. while another employs an easier reading, “to your country and to the house of your parents.” So the Syriac version. These indicate that even early translators found difficulty with the Hebrew text at this point. Some have argued that the reference to the mother’s house was a way in which Naomi could keep open the possibility of the girls’ contracting marriage again without affecting their relationship to Israel. Presumably it would have been different if they had been sent back to “the house of their fathers.” Herbert Hajek, “Heimkehr nach Israel, Eine Auslegung des Buches Ruth,” Biblische Studien 33, Neukirchen, 1962, pages 28-29. However, this argument is not very convincing. There is some doubt, indeed, as to precisely the extent to which so-called levirate rights applied. This is the question asked by R. de Vaux, Les institutions de l’Ancien Testament I, Paris, 1961, page 69. It may be that there is here a trace of some early matriarchal organization such as the ancient Arabs had, in which the tent was normally regarded as the property of the wife. This suggestion has been made by A. Lods, Israël des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle, 1930, page 219 (English translation by S. H. Hooke, Israel from Its Beginnings to the Middle of the Eighth Century, 1932. Page numbers are quoted according to the French edition). A. Vincent (k La Sainte Bible, le livre des Juges, le livre de Ruth, Paris, 1958, page 152, note b) notes that each wife had her own tent and that the girls lived in the tent of their mother. According to E. F. C. Rosenmüller (“Judices et Ruth,” Scholia in Vetus Testamentum, libri historici, Vol. II, 1835, ad loc.) and P. Joüon (k Ruth, commentaire philologique et exégétique, 1953, ad loc.), the mention of the mother’s house should have a sentimental value, and by virtue of this sentimental value it should make the argument stronger. Though this may be true, the stress on the connotative meaning can hardly be the only explanation of the formula.

This expression “the mother’s house” is not only a problem for exegesis (that is, for determining what is meant in the Hebrew text); it poses the similarly difficult problem of interpretation in many receptor languages where it would seem almost incredible that a woman would be sent back to her mother’s house, especially since she would presumably belong to the family of her husband. This means that for a number of receptor languages it is important to have an explanatory marginal note; for example, “According to the custom of the ancient Hebrews, a widow who had no children could either stay with the family of her deceased husband or could remarry outside of that family.”

The second part of verse 8 begins a blessing which extends through the first part of verse 9. This is then followed by the simple departure ceremony of kissing (9b). The Hebrew term rendered be … good to or have been [good] to is frequently translated as “show kindness to,” “be kind to,” or “treat kindly.” The Hebrew term is the same one which is often rendered in Revised Standard Version as “steadfast love,” and two of its basic components of meaning are loyalty and faithfulness. So rightly W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, Lieferung I, Leiden, 1967, s.v. chesed. The phrase ʿasah chesed is also found in Genesis 21.23; Joshua 2.12; Judges 1.24; 8.35; 1 Samuel 15.6; 20.8; 2 Samuel 3.8; 9.1, 7; 10.2; 1 Chronicles 19.2. Accordingly, the New English Bible has “may the LORD keep faith with you.” However, it is difficult to indicate this meaning of the Hebrew expression in this context, since there is no setting which would suggest loyalty or faithfulness, except insofar as the LORD would “be good to” them, even as the daughters-in-law had “been good to” Naomi and to those who had died.

In some languages the only satisfactory way of speaking about “being good to someone” is to use a term such as “to help”; for example, “may the LORD help you as you have helped me and those who have died.” But in many languages one cannot use this form of request or blessing without employing some expression to introduce the direct quotation; for example, “I pray to the LORD that he may be good to you…,” or as addressed directly to God, “I ask you, LORD, be good to my daughters-in-law as they have been to me and to those who have died.”

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 3:1

This first verse forms a transition with the last verse of chapter 2, since it takes up the matter of Ruth’s need for having security and a home of her own rather than living with her mother-in-law. But this verse is not merely transitional; it establishes the theme of the rest of the book, namely a husband and a home for Ruth.

Some time later: the adverbial conjunction in Hebrew should not be understood as “immediately” or “right then,” but as a reference to the next significant element in the sequence of events. For the use of wayyiqtol see Joüon, par. 118c, and already S. D. Luzzatto, Grammatica ebraica, 1853, par. 1271. The lapse of time could not have been more than a few weeks at most, for the threshing of the barley had not been completed, even though both the barley and the wheat had been harvested. The harvest included cutting the stalks in the field, gathering and tying them into sheaves, and transporting the sheaves to the threshing floor.

After a paragraph break and section heading, it is important to introduce the participants in the dialogue; therefore the introductory statement should read: Naomi said to Ruth.

The sentence I must find a husband for you, so that you will have a home of your own is in Hebrew literally “Should I not seek a home for you, that it may be well with you?” (On the use of the question in Hebrew, see the comments on “Let me give you some advice” and “I have ordered my men…” in 2.7.) In the verbal form of the Hebrew text an aspect of obligation is implicit, and for this reason one should translate “I must find” or “I must arrange.” Compare Joüon, par. 113.

A literal translation of the clause I must find a husband for you can easily be misunderstood, since it might imply that Naomi would actually go out and search for a husband for Ruth. Such a translation becomes especially misleading if for find one employs the same word as may be used in the receptor language in speaking of a young man going out to find (or to court) a wife. In many languages, therefore, find a husband for you must be expressed as a causative; for example, “I must cause you to have a husband.” In other languages one can employ a more or less technical term; for example, “I must arrange a marriage for you.”

Both here and in 1.9 the Hebrew terms for home indicate a condition of rest and security attained through marriage. Compare Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. manoach and manuchah. See also Hertzberg, op. cit., ad loc.: “Wie 1.9 meint es konkret die Ehe.” In general it is necessary to make explicit the basis for this rest and security, though in some modern English translations the basis is left implicit; for example, “I want to see you happily settled” (New English Bible; cf. also Moffatt). The Good News Translation text, however, makes the basis for this happiness and security quite explicit, I must find a husband for you. There are other ways in which this can be expressed; for example, “I want to see you married,” “I want to be sure you have a husband,” or “I want you to be married so that you will be happy and secure.” (Cf. Smith-Goodspeed and Jerusalem Bible. For ʾasher as introduction of a consecutive clause, see Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, par. 161. Dhorme and NAB take ʾasher as introduction of a relative clause, “a home … that will please you,” an interpretation which is not generally followed.)

In some languages there is no such term as home. Rather, one must specify a relation between husband and wife; for example, “I must cause you to get married so that you will have someone to live with” or “I must arrange for some man to marry you so that you will live happily.” It is usually not enough to employ a term which simply designates a house, such as “so that you may have a house.” As noted in 1.9, a widow would live in a house, but this would not imply having a home.

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 4:18 - 4:22

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:22

This final verse of chapter 1 constitutes a summary paragraph. It adds no new information except to introduce “the barley harvest,” and this serves as a kind of translation to what Ruth is described as doing in chapter 2.

The verbal construction in Hebrew makes it quite clear that verse 22 is to be taken simply as a conclusion. For the use of the wayyiqtol in this sense, see Joüon, par. 118. Accordingly, in the receptor language one can employ a similar device to mark a concluding statement; for example, “This is how it happened,” “This then was how,” “As a result,” or even “So.” The occurrence of the term Moabite is redundant; that is to say, the same information has been given earlier. However, the repetition may be for emphasis, and thus many translators may wish to retain the attributive, not only here, but also in 2.2, 21; 4.5, 10.

In many languages there is no precise equivalent for barley. In such cases it is useful to employ a general word for grain. When such a general term does not exist, one can sometimes employ a phrase which suggests similarity to grains which are known in the region; for example, “millet-like grain” or “rice-like grain.”

Likewise, there may be no specific term for harvest, but this can be described as “the time when the barley grain was cut” or “the season when the barley grain was brought to the barn.”

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 .