She asked is literally in Hebrew “she said,” but since what follows is a request, a verb such as “asked,” “asked permission to,” or “inquired whether she could” is fitting.

It is appropriate to use at this point either direct or indirect discourse in introducing what Ruth requested; for example, “She asked whether she could follow the workers,” “She asked if she might glean” (New English Bible), or “She asked, ‘May I gather up the grain left by the workers?’ ” Whether direct or indirect discourse should be employed depends upon what is natural in the receptor language. Note that an expression of direct discourse would involve discourse within discourse, since it is quoting what Ruth said within a quotation of what the servant was saying to Boaz.

Gather grain translates what is literally in the Hebrew text “glean and gather among the sheaves after the reapers.” This is the form employed by a majority of modern versions, but it represents a serious textual difficulty. Perhaps “among the sheaves” was mistakenly introduced into this verse from verse 15. According to verse 2, Ruth did not ask permission to gather among the sheaves; that would have been contrary to customary practice. Anyone who was gleaning was required to stay behind the reapers; that is to say, they could only gather after the harvesters had completed their work and in areas where the sheaves had been taken away. Compare G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, Vol. III, pages 46 ff., 1964 (reprint of the 1928-1942 edition). Furthermore, it was only afterward (verse 15) that Ruth got permission to glean among the sheaves, which was an unusual favor. For these reasons the translator is encouraged to omit the prepositional phrase “among the sheaves” and to translate as in Good News Translation: follow the workers and gather grain. This type of translation has considerable support from ancient versions, but one cannot decide whether the early translations represented an older Hebrew original or whether they corrected the Hebrew text in a similar manner. There are a number of other suggestions for change which have been proposed, but none of these is fully acceptable. The whole phrase “and gather among the sheaves” is lacking in the Syriac version and in the Vulgate. BJ follows partly this versional evidence in omitting “among the sheaves.” Among the English translations, RSV, NEB, and Moffatt reproduce the Hebrew text. NAB’s rendering “to gather the gleanings into sheaves” suggests a sequence of two related actions, but the translation is quite exaggerated. There is no indication that “gleanings” should be the implicit object of “to gather,” and it is impossible to translate the Hebrew preposition be with “into.” Among recent commentators, Gerleman (op. cit., ad loc.) is in favor of the omission of the prepositional phrase “among the sheaves.” Others propose different changes in the Hebrew text. Joüon, Rudolph, and Haller (see their commentaries ad loc.) propose to read baʿamirim (“stalks”) instead of baʿamarim (“sheaves”). However, Hertzberg (op. cit., ad loc.) is certainly right when he observes that this particular meaning of ʿamir is very questionable and that this would be the only instance where the collective singular noun ʿamir would have a plural suffix. However, his own proposal to read weʾosephot instead of weʾasaphti (this means reading “Garbensammlerinnen” [gatherers of sheaves] for “let me gather”) is also subject to many objections. First, one would expect in such a case a connective construction weʾosephot ʿamarim (without the preposition be) and then one would expect to find this construction at the end of the sentence, in any case after the preposition ʾachare (“after”). Where necessary one can add a footnote introducing the literal form of the Hebrew text.

There are a number of other textual problems in verse 7, but they have little bearing upon the problems of interpretation.

If one does not take into account the Masoretic accentuation of the Hebrew text, it is possible to relate the temporal markers, “since early morning and … just now,” to what follows. The meaning would then be “[Thus/Therefore, she came and stayed here.] Since dawn and until now she hardly rested a minute.” The emphasis of this information is not on “stayed here” but rather on the fact that Ruth never stopped working, that she didn’t take a rest from dawn until the time of the conversation between Boaz and his servant.

But recently two other very old interpretations have been taken up and defended. They both suggest that the idea is that Ruth, as an inexperienced gleaner, was only able to gather a little bit (meʿat), and that the leader of the harvesters took pity on her. The first interpretation corresponds to the literal translation, which can be paraphrased as follows: “And-she-came and-remained-standing since this-morning until now; [and] [the fact] that, [now that] she [is] sitting [before returning] home, [is a] small [matter].” The second interpretation is a variant on the first but divides the text differently: “And-she-came and-remained-standing since this-morning. Now, until now, [time when] sat down-for-her to-the-house, [is] a small [matter].” See D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, 1982, Fribourg: Editions universitaires, page 132. M. Weippert (1978, “Ein neuer Kommentar zu Ruth,” Biblica 59, page 272, note 8) raises the valid question whether bayit cannot have the meaning ‘Grundstück, field,’ as sometimes the Accadian bitu or the Arabic bayt. See also Septuagint: “in 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 Hebrew text of verse 2 begins “and he took ten men of the elders of the city.” Since, however, Elimelech’s nearest relative is the subject of the last sentence of verse 1, it is normally important to mark the shift of actors so that Boaz should be introduced as the subject of the first sentence of verse 2. The fact that this action by Boaz is subsequent to the preceding should be marked by some kind of transitional device such as Then, “And next,” or “Immediately afterwards.”

Certain problems are involved in translating the verb got, which represents in Hebrew a verb often translated as “took.” One should not imagine that Boaz had to go through the town in order to find or select ten of the town’s elders; what he no doubt did was to ask ten of the town’s elders to stop as they were going in or out of the town gate. In many languages an appropriate translation would be “and Boaz caused ten of the town elders to stop” or “Boaz asked ten of the town elders to remain.” It is also possible to use an expression such as “selected” or “picked out” (cf. New American Bible), but this might imply too formal an activity.

The leaders mentioned in this context would have been the heads of leading families, who formed the aristocracy of the town. As local authorities they were largely responsible for legal matters (see Deut 25.7; 1 Kgs 21.8-14). See also R. de Vaux, op. cit., I, pages 108-109, 212-213. There would certainly have been more than ten elders in Bethlehem, though the exact number is not known. A town such as Sukkoth had seventy-seven elders, according to Judges 8.14. In finding an appropriate term for “elders,” it is important not to use a word which merely means “older men,” though in many societies the older men are the leaders of the town. A more natural expression in many languages is “ten important men in the town,” “ten of the leaders in the town,” or “ten of the men in the town to whom people showed respect.”

The direct discourse employing an imperative expression, as in the Hebrew, “… said, ‘Sit down here,’ ” might seem to be rather impolite in some languages. For that reason Good News Translation introduces indirect discourse, asked them to sit down, which may seem more natural in such a setting. If direct discourse is used, the imperative force of the request may be somewhat altered by the use of some particle showing proper politeness, equivalent to “please” in English: “please sit down here.”

When they were seated translates what is literally in Hebrew “and they sat down.” If an independent clause is used, it should be observed that their sitting down is a result of Boaz’s request, and therefore it must be rendered as “so they sat down” or “hence they sat down.”

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 .

In the Hebrew text the name Ruth is immediately followed by the expression “the Moabitess,” but it is not always necessary to repeat this expression (see the comments on 1.22 and 2.2). In a number of ancient versions also the repetition was regarded as superfluous. So in Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac versions. Some of the ancient versions do introduce, however, the person spoken to in this case, namely, her mother-in-law: “Ruth said to her mother-in-law.” So Septuagint and Syriac versions.

Since Ruth here provides information which she has not already communicated, it may be necessary to change the verb said to something such as “added” (New American Bible). It is not clear whether the information that Ruth provides in verse 21 is directly related to her recognizing that Boaz has certain responsibilities for her and Naomi, but it is certainly not out of keeping with what has been stated in the latter part of verse 20. Some commentators suggest this relation, Compare Hertzberg, op. cit., ad loc. and it is hinted at in some translations (cf. Moffatt “Yes, said Ruth…”). It is questionable, however, whether one is justified in trying to introduce this type of connection between verses 20 and 21.

Best of all, he told me is a free rendering of a complex Hebrew construction which may be literally rendered as “there is still this, which he said.” So Joüon, par. 157 N: “(il y a) encore (ceci) qu’il a dit.” Differently Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc.: “(ich muß) noch (hinzufügen).” NEB “And what is more…” seems to intensify the following statement, which is overtranslation. Even an omission (as in Moffatt) is semantically more justified. Direct discourse within direct discourse may present certain problems in some receptor languages. Therefore a second direct discourse can often be changed into an indirect one: “he told me to stay close” (New English Bible) or he told me to keep gathering grain with his workers.

To keep gathering grain with his workers reflects a Hebrew expression containing the phrase “keep close to.” (See the comments on verse 8.)

The term workers has in Hebrew the masculine form, but the emphasis is not here upon the sex of the servants; it is rather a more general term to include both male and female servants. The focus is upon “working with his servants,” that is, in his field rather than in the field of some other man. A number of ancient versions, however, used the feminine form of the noun for “servants” (namely, “women servants” So in some Septuagint manuscripts, the Ethiopic, Old Latin, and Armenian versions.), but that is a secondary reading introduced to harmonize this information with what occurs in verses 8, 22, and 23 of this chapter.

Until they finish the harvest involves both the barley and the wheat harvest. Normally the wheat harvest took place about a month later than the barley harvest. Traditionally the wheat harvest ended at the Feast of Weeks, seven weeks after the barley harvest had begun. See the Century Bible, page 416.

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 whole town is really a figure of speech in which the designation of the whole stands for a part. That is to say, one speaks of “the whole town” when in reality one means only a large part of the inhabitants of the town. In this case, the whole town means the women of Bethlehem. Something of the effect of this figure of speech may be realized in a translation such as “all the women of the town got excited and said….”

Became excited is a good translation of the Hebrew term which may be rendered as “to be beside oneself.” See Baumgartner, s.v. hwmʾ: “ausser sich geraten.” Same use of the verb with synecdoche of “city” in 1 Kings 1.45 and with synecdoche of the “earth” in 1 Samuel 4.5.

The verb exclaimed may not be a satisfactory term to introduce the following question. Accordingly, one may say “asked one another.”

Is this really Naomi, though in the form of a question, may have the value of an exclamation. So rightly Joüon, par. 161. Compare Tamisier’s translation: “C’est donc Noémi!” It is certain that the question of the women should not be understood to mean that they were uncertain who Naomi was; rather, they were surprised that she was in such a condition, without either husband or sons. In some languages, therefore, a more appropriate equivalent may be “they exclaimed, ‘It is Naomi!’ ”

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 .

Expressions introducing direct discourse, such as he asked and she answered, normally precede the quoted words. In English, however, it is possible to place such expressions after direct discourse if the direct discourse is not too long, or they may be embedded within the direct discourse, as in the case of she answered in this verse. Some languages employ identifications both before and after direct discourse, thus providing an oral equivalent of quotation marks.

It’s Ruth, sir translates a Hebrew phrase “I Ruth your servant.” See B. A. Rebera, 1982, “Identifying participants in Old Testament dialogue,” The Bible Translator 33, pages 201-207. This phrase must often be rendered in a somewhat different form; for example, “I am your servant, Ruth” or “I am Ruth, your servant.” This use of “servant” must not imply that Ruth is asking to be made a servant, nor does it mean that she has already accepted the status of a servant to Boaz. Rather, it is an oriental expression of politeness and indicates Ruth’s attitude of respect for Boaz. For ʾamah with this meaning, see Baumgartner, s.v. The same formula is already found in Ugaritic. See J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 1965, page 105. In other languages an expression of respect may take the form of a special title for Boaz, for example, “I am Ruth, your honor” or “you who are so important, I am just Ruth, a humble person.”

The two sentences Because you are … marry me translate a single Hebrew sentence which is literally “spread your skirt over your maidservant, for you are next of kin.” This sentence has a poetic structure in Hebrew with a meter of 3 + 3. It is usually difficult to reproduce a very short section of poetic structure in a receptor language, especially one which involves a rather rare figure of speech which, if translated literally, might very well lead to a wrong understanding of Ruth’s intent.

For a discussion of the meaning of close relative, see the comments on 2.20. Because the relation between a close relative and marriage may not be at all clear, Good News Translation makes explicit the significance of being a close relative, namely, being responsible for taking care of someone. This is necessary for those cultures in which such a responsibility is by no means automatically included in such a relation. In fact, in many languages an expression “close relative” would imply that marriage would be impossible, since marriage of close relatives would mean incest. This means that it may be necessary to use a term for close relative or “next of kin” which will indicate clearly that Boaz is not someone who would be traditionally prohibited from entering into marriage with Ruth. In some languages the appropriate expression is “close relative by marriage” or “close relative because of the one I was married to,” a phrase which may be necessary in this context, but which, of course, must not be used throughout.

The consonants in the Hebrew expression rendered in Good News Translation as marry me may have two different meanings, depending upon the vowels which are associated with the consonants. With one set of vowel markings the meaning is “spread your skirt over your maidservant,” and with the other set of vowel markings the meaning is “spread your wings over your maidservant.” See the related comments on “protection” in 2.11-12. In general the meaning seems quite clearly to be a request for protection, with the specific meaning of marry me, For the reference to marriage see Deuteronomy 23.1 and Ezekiel 16.8. Compare also A. S. van der Woude (in THAT 1, 1971, s.v. kanaf): “Als Rechtsbrauch wird er (i.e., der Zipfel des Gewandes) vom Manne über die erwählte Braut ausgebreitet.” See also A. Jirku, Die magische Bedeutung der Kleidung in Israel, 1914, pages 14 ff. Arabic parallels to the levirate marriage show that the near kinsman established his claim to the widow by throwing his garment over her. See W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 1903, page 105; G. Jacob, Altarabisches Beduinenleben, 1897, page 58, and J. L. Burckhardt, Bemerkungen über die Beduinen und Wahaby, 1831, page 213. but most translators and commentators prefer to retain the literal idiom “spread your skirt over your maidservant.” Haller (op. cit., ad loc.) translates “wings,” but does not exclude in his commentary the possibility of the alternative reading. For him the ambiguity may even have been intended by the author. Hertzberg (op. cit., ad loc.) may be right in seeing in the reading “wings” a euphemism. In a sense, both components of meaning, union and protection, are present in the expression “spread your skirt over your maidservant,” So rightly H. H. Rowley, “The marriage of Ruth,” Harvard Theological Review XL, 1947, page 92. Rowley (note 57) quotes J. Lewy who (RHR cx, 1934, pages 31 ff.) cites Assyrian evidence showing that the skirt of the garment stood for the personality of the wearer, and especially for his honor. This evidence would signify that Boaz extended the cover of his position and person to Ruth. so that the difference in meaning between the two possible ways of writing the vowels with the Hebrew consonants is not great.

One of the serious difficulties involved in a literal translation of the Hebrew idiom, “spread your skirt over your maidservant,” is that it is too easily interpreted as an invitation to sexual intercourse, and this seems to be out of keeping with the characters of the story. In most instances, therefore, it may be best to give the meaning of the idiom in the text and, if necessary, provide a literal translation in a marginal note. It is, of course, not to be excluded that the narrator has been intentionally ambiguous and provocative (Campbell 1975, page 121, and Stasson, pages 70-71).

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 identification of his relative must be the same as the phrase used in verse 1. It is very awkward in many languages to keep referring to a person without some proper name, but there is no alternative in the present discourse.

The statement of Boaz is literally in Hebrew: “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land which belonged to our kinsman Elimelech.” Good News Translation restructures these principal clauses into a cause-effect or reason-result relation, indicating that in view of the fact that Naomi has come back from Moab, she wanted to sell the field. One of the difficulties in translating this sentence is that this information is entirely new. There is no suggestion, for example, that Boaz had talked to Naomi about this subject. It may be that Boaz simply introduced the question of the land in order to pose this as the first problem or aspect of the negotiation. Such a procedure would certainly be a clever one. This is the opinion of Rowley, op. cit., pages 94-95.

In some languages it is important to indicate that the nearest relative would no doubt know about the field, and therefore the verse may be restructured as “then he said to the nearest relative, ‘You will remember the field that belonged to our relative Elimelech. Naomi has now returned from the country of Moab and she wants to sell it’ ” (cf. New English Bible).

The field that belonged to our relative Elimelech may be translated as “the field which our deceased relative Elimelech formerly owned.”

Our relative Elimelech may be rendered as “Elimelech who was a member of our family,” “Elimelech who belonged to our clan,” “Elimelech who was related to us,” or “Elimelech who was one of our kin.”

The Hebrew verb translated wants to sell is normally read as a participle “is selling.” So H. Greßmann, Die Schriften des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, 1910-1915, I, 2, page 275; Haller, page 16; Herzberg, page 277; Century Bible and the majority of modern translations. The form of the perfect tense (which is the form occurring in the Hebrew text) would normally be translated as “she had sold the field.” This would seem to imply that the land had already been sold and that it would need to be bought back from the actual owner. But in verse 9 Boaz buys the land directly from Naomi. It is not necessary, however, to understand the perfect tense in Hebrew as expressing some past event; it can indicate the fact that a decision to sell and the actual act of selling take place at the same time. See Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, par. 41. An additional argument is that this use of the perfect is found in other legal procedures, e.g., in Genesis 23.11. Early translators certainly read a perfect, though they did not rightly understand the meaning: Septuagint hē dedotai; Syriac “Naomi has sold to me.” An appropriate translation in such a case would be “she wants to sell.”

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 .