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 .

Be patient translates what is literally in Hebrew “sit down,” with emphasis upon being quiet and unworried. The implicit location is “here,” and therefore one may translate, as in New American Bible, “wait here.” However, the focus of attention is not so much upon the location as upon the attitude which Naomi thinks Ruth is justified in having. Accordingly, a translation such as be patient (as in Good News Translation) is recommended. One may also use a negative equivalent; for example, “do not worry” or “do not be concerned.”

How this all turns out is a very general expression and may be rendered as “what will happen,” “what will be the result,” “what will happen to you,” or “what will happen which concerns you.”

All turns out must suggest that the results will be known very shortly, and therefore in languages which have more than one future tense, it is important to use a future which designates activity or an event of the same day.

Will not rest today until he settles may be altered into an affirmative expression: “today he will certainly settle,” “he will surely take care of today,” or “he will today most surely arrange for.”

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 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 .

Before it was light enough for her to be seen translates what in Hebrew is literally “before one could recognize another,” but the basis for such recognition must be made explicit in most languages. Accordingly, Good News Translation employs a reference to light. One may, however, employ a negative expression, “when it was still so dark that no one would recognize her.” The necessity for making the reason explicit was already felt by ancient translators. So the Syriac translator, who makes the setting explicit in adding after the verbal form “she got up”: “in the morning when it was still dark.” In some languages there is a special term for designating early morning darkness, and therefore a reference to such a period of relative obscurity can be employed in this context.

Because Boaz did not want is in Hebrew “and he said.” There is no doubt that Boaz is the subject which needs to be made explicit, For reason of a more logical sequence, the Syriac translator made Ruth the subject of the utterance: “she said to him, ‘Nobody should know that I came to you on the threshing floor.’ ” but no modern translation states clearly to whom the utterance is addressed. Failure to do this is probably due to the fact that there are three different possible interpretations: (1) Boaz may be addressing his servants; This is the interpretation found in the Targum. (2) he may be addressing Ruth directly to warn her; So Vulgate: et dixit Booz, cave ne quis noverit quod huc veneris. or (3) he may be understood as speaking to himself, and therefore the direct discourse may be introduced by a verb meaning “to think”; for example, “Boaz thought to himself.” This is the interpretation of some modern commentators such as Haller and Gerleman (op. cit., ad loc.). The first interpretation seems rather unlikely, for nothing has been said previously about the servants’ noticing Ruth’s presence at the threshing floor. If Boaz wanted to address this statement to the servants, it is strange that the Hebrew text would not have indicated clearly to whom the statement was made. In the case of the second interpretation, it would be necessary to alter the direct discourse so as to read “no one must know that you came here.” Accordingly, it is probable that the third interpretation is to be accepted. This interpretation may also suggest that, since Boaz had concluded that no one must know that she was there, he had told her to get up before it was light enough for her to be seen. Rudolph (op. cit., ad loc.) has already seen this, and he inserts bidbaro (“at his command”) after wattaqom (“she got up”). In this he is followed by Haller. Hertzberg, on the other hand, thinks that such an operation is not necessary. However, we should make a distinction between an emendation of the source text and the necessity of making implicit information explicit in translation. The former is not justified, the latter is often obligatory. The entire verse may then be restructured as: “So she slept at his feet until morning. Since Boaz had concluded that no one should know that she (or this woman, or a woman This is the reading according to the Septuagint.) had come there, he told her to get up when it was still dark so that no one would recognize her.”

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 .

For the clause I am a close relative and am responsible for you, see the comments on verse 9. In some languages, in order to say I … am responsible for you, one must introduce some aspect of obligation as a separate component of the phrase; for example, “I must take care of you,” “it is my duty to take care of you,” or “our customs demand that I take care of you.”

This reference to a closer relative introduces a factor of surprise into the story. Everything has proceeded as Naomi outlined it to Ruth, and no mention has been made until now of the other person who is an even closer relative. It is surprising that Naomi apparently did not know about the closer relative. That is why Staples (“Note on Ruth 2:20,” AJSL 54, 1937-1938, pages 62-65) states that Naomi did know about his existence. However, for that purpose he has to change the text of Ruth 2.20 into “he is not our goʾel” and that of Ruth 3.12 into “I am not really your goʾel,” but these renderings are very unnatural and not convincing. If she did know, she did not communicate the fact to Ruth, or at least the writer of the story does not indicate that she did. At any rate, Boaz knew, and it is this knowledge which prompted his rather cautious behavior. He was evidently attracted by Ruth, since otherwise he could have evasively referred her to the closer relative. Against Humbert, op. cit., ad loc. The closer relative obviously had prior claims and prior duties, and for Boaz to have disregarded the other man’s rights might have resulted in serious consequences. Probably Ruth, when infringing on the rights of the closer relative, could even have been charged with adultery. See Rowley’s comparison with the Tamar case, op. cit., pages 93-94.

In many languages it is difficult to speak of a closer relative. Sometimes one can say “one who is nearer to your family,” “a man who is not as separated from your family as I am,” or “one who stands closer to your mother-in-law than I do.” In some languages it is even necessary to use some specific form of address; for example, “someone who can call your mother-in-law sister” or “someone who can call your mother-in-law aunt.” This, of course, depends upon the generation which is involved, and since Ruth would presumably be marrying a person in her own generation, it may be preferable to have the closer relative be related to Naomi as nephew to aunt. In almost every society there are slight differences of usage in kinship terms, and therefore it is necessary to represent accurately the relationships which are specified within each language-culture system.

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 .

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 .