The Hebrew text has “Ruth her daughter-in-law,” but it is not necessary to reproduce “daughter-in-law” in this context, since the relationship is quite clear (cf. New English Bible and New American Bible).

In some languages a general verb for said is appropriate in introducing Naomi’s comment in this verse. In other languages the link between verse 22 and verse 21 needs to be made more evident, and therefore one may use a verb such as “rejoined” (New American Bible), “responded,” or “replied in turn.”

For the translation of daughter, see the comments on verses 8 and 9. The connotation of this term is one of affection and kinship. A modern English equivalent may be “my dear” (see New American Bible).

The Hebrew text of verse 22 presents the two statements of Naomi in the same order as that shown in Good News Translation. The comparative it will be better for you to work with the women in Boaz’ field precedes the statement concerning Ruth’s possibly being molested if she goes to another man’s field. It may seem more natural in many languages, however, to state the reason first, You might be molested…, and then the result or conclusion, namely, that Ruth had better stay with the servants of Boaz.

The clause it will be better for you to work with the women in Boaz’ field is in Hebrew a comparative construction, but the second part of the comparison is left out, namely, “better than….” See Joüon, par 141. This makes the Hebrew clause correspond more or less to the English construction “you had better accompany his girls” (Moffatt). However, in some receptor languages it may not be possible to leave out the second member of a comparison. One may have to say, for example, “it is better for you to stay with his servants than to go with the servants of some other man.” Perhaps a more natural expression for this comparison would employ a statement containing an expression of necessity; for example, “you should only accompany his women servants” or “you must stay with his servants.”

You might be molested translates a Hebrew verb which often means merely “to meet.” In this context, however, it means “to meet with hostility.” There seems no reason for following New English Bible “let no one catch you,” since the meaning seems clearly to be “molest” or “harm.” One may even have the active verbal construction: “so that no one may attack you in the fields” or “so that the reapers in the field of someone else may not attack you there.”

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 .

Naomi took the child may be rendered in some languages as “Naomi took the child in her arms” or “Naomi took the child in her hands.”

Held him close is literally in Hebrew “laid him in her bosom” (cf. New English Bible “laid him in her lap,” and New American Bible “placed him on her lap”). One meaning of the Hebrew term translated “bosom” or “lap” may refer to a fold of the garment at the height of the breast, but this is hardly an appropriate meaning in this context. See especially Baumgartner, s.v. cheq. Most receptor languages have an appropriate way of speaking about this action of taking a child and holding it on the lap or holding it close to oneself. The rendering of Good News Translation is in this context rather neutral.

It is probable that the expression held him close refers to the rite of adoption. Such a rite was well known in the Orient and has been attested in Mesopotamian and Hurrian law in the second millennium B. C. It is not specifically mentioned in the Old Testament laws, but several Old Testament stories suggest that this practice was not unknown in Israel; for example, the adoption of the children of Bilhah and Zilpah by Rachel and Leah in Genesis 30.3-13. There also seem to be traces of such a rite in the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen 48) and the fact that the sons of Machir were born on the knees of Joseph (Gen 50.23). Through a kind of legal adoption symbolized by this act, they were considered the sons of Joseph. See L. Köhler, “Die Adoptionsform von Ruth 4.16,” ZAW 29 (1909), pages 312-314; Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc. This adoption of Obed by Naomi does not necessarily support the argument in favor of an ancient matriarchy which may have preceded a patriarchal organization, So Lods, op cit., pages 220-221. nor is the adoption referred to in this passage a typical or ordinary one, since it takes place within the family group, and the legal effects would be restricted to the family relationship. So de Vaux, op cit., page 86.

It is not entirely clear whether the Hebrew term underlying the translation and took care of him should be taken literally as “to nurse,” So Brown-Driver-Briggs, Köhler, Baumgartner, Tamisier, and all modern English translations. or whether it means simply to look after the child. So Rudolph, Haller, Hertzberg, Luther, Zürcher, BJ, and Dhorme. It would certainly seem better to employ a more general expression such as “and she looked after him,” “and she took care of him,” or “and she watched after him.”

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 does not attempt to identify the meanings of Naomi and Marah, since to any Hebrew reader the meaning would be obvious: Naomi would be understood as meaning “happy,” and Marah would be understood as meaning “bitter.” However, it may be useful to introduce something of the meaning of Naomi and Mara into the text itself; for example, “Don’t call me Naomi, the Happy One, … Call me Mara, the Sad One.” One can, of course, simply keep the names Naomi and Mara and then provide the meanings for these terms in a marginal note. Observe that Good News Translation explains both Naomi and Mara by a marginal note at this point.

Almighty God renders the Hebrew proper name Shaddai. It is impossible here to deal with all of the problems represented by this proper name. It occurs in a number of writings as another name for Yahweh, See Johs. Pedersen, Israel, Its Life and Culture, III-IV, London and Copenhagen, 1947, page 665; Alt, “Der Gott der Väter,” Beitr. z. Wiss. vom AT, 3 Folge, Heft 12, 1929. According to B. D. Eerdmans (k The Religion of Israel, Leiden, 1947, page 20), Yahweh is identified in a few passages with Shaddai, but in others El Shaddai refers to the protecting genius of the family. In all other instances Shaddai should be distinguished from Yahweh. Only in a later period in which all divine powers were absorbed by Yahweh, Shaddai became equivalent with the God of the covenant. See also B. D. Eerdmans, Studies in Job 1939, page 12. One should not exclude the possibility that Ruth 1.20b contains an allusion to Job 27.2. This could account for the use of Shaddai, which is found only in 1.20-21. and a translator may transcribe Shaddai as do some modern translations (for example, Bible de Jérusalem and Dhorme). A more common practice is to employ a translation such as “the Almighty” or “Almighty God.” To do so implies, of course, that the name is translatable, whereas in reality its meaning is quite obscure. For the different proposals as to the possible derivations, as well as for the literature on the subject, see the dictionaries. However, the translation “Almighty” does have a very old tradition, and therefore one may be justified in using some such expression as “the most powerful God,” “God who can do all things,” or “the most powerful One.”

Has made my life bitter involves a pun in Hebrew, since Marah (Revised Standard Version “Mara,” following the Masoretic text) may be used not only to describe a person, but to identify the way in which one has been caused to suffer. Moffatt attempts to bring a play on words in his English translation: “Call me Mara, for the Almighty has cruelly marred me.” Accidentally, because English “mar” seems to be derived from a Germanic root marr-II. Compare R. Grandsaignes d’Hauterive, Dictionnaire des racines des langues européennes, Paris, 1948, s.v. marr-II. Sometimes one can preserve something of the pun by translating “Call me Mara because the Almighty God has treated me bitterly,” in which case it is necessary to have a footnote indicating that Mara means “bitter.” There is, however, a serious complication for such a translation in English. If one says “Call me Mara, the Bitter One,” then “bitter” may be understood in a wrong sense, and even the phrase “has treated me bitterly” could appear to refer to God’s attitude rather than to the extent of Naomi’s suffering. Even a translation such as “it is a bitter lot that the Almighty has sent me,” though somewhat more acceptable in English, would rarely be translatable literally into another language.

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 sentence The LORD bless you, see the comments on 2.20. At this point the Good News Translation text changes a passive expression in Hebrew (literally “may you be blessed by the LORD”) into an active form. A number of languages do not have this type of so-called optative expression, and hence some type of introductory expression of speaking or desiring may be required; for example, “I ask the LORD to bless you,” “I pray that the LORD will bless you,” or even “I am sure that the LORD will bless you.” A translation such as in New English Bible, “the LORD has blessed you,” does not seem justified in view of the evident optative meaning of the Hebrew verbal form. See Joüon, par. 132-133.

In the Hebrew Boaz here addresses Ruth as “my daughter,” but in some languages such words at this point would be inappropriate, since they would only confirm the suspicions that the reference to “close relative” did indeed imply an incestuous relation. The closest equivalent in some languages is “dear young lady” or “dear woman.” It would seem particularly inappropriate in many languages for Boaz to address a woman who had already been married by a term such as “daughter.” Therefore Good News Translation omits this address.

The second sentence of verse 10 in Hebrew is literally “you have made your last loyalty greater than the first.” The references here would be perfectly clear to the ancient Hebrew reader, but they are certainly obscure to the average present-day reader of this story. The theme of the “first loyalty” was already spoken of by Boaz in 2.11, a reference to Ruth’s concern for her mother-in-law and loyalty to her. The “last loyalty” is a reference to Ruth’s preference for Boaz as a husband rather than for a young man, in order that Boaz, as one of the “redeemers” (see 2.20), could give an official offspring to the first husband, who was deceased, and so to the family of the mother-in-law. This loyalty is stated more precisely by Boaz as You might have gone looking for a young man. Since the reference to the “last loyalty” and the “first loyalty” are quite obscure to the average reader, it is usually preferable to follow the practice of Good News Translation in making the relation explicit: You are showing even greater family loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law.

In the phrase translated gone looking for a young man, the Hebrew text employs an extremely rare use of the verb “go after” or “follow.” In fact, the only similar context in the Old Testament is Proverbs 7.22, in which “the beloved one” is the goal of such an action. One might assume that a verb such as “run after” or gone looking for would be almost universally applicable to courtship and marriage, but this is not necessarily true. Some languages may require quite a different type of expression; for example, “to cause a young man to be interested in you,” “to cause a young man to desire you,” or “to cause a young man to see you as beautiful.” On the other hand, some languages simply use “to want to marry a young man” or “to want to have a young man as a husband.”

The phrase rich or poor reverses the Hebrew word order, “poor or rich.” In many languages this reversed order seems far more natural. Even some early translators felt the necessity for a different order. The reversed order is already found in the Syriac version. Rich or poor is a very elliptical expression, and it must be filled out in a number of languages; for example, “You have not run after a young man, if he were rich or if he were poor,” “You have not run after either a rich young man or a poor young man,” or “You have not run after young men, one who is rich or one who is poor.”

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 Good News Translation rendering Ruth bowed down with her face touching the ground represents a Hebrew expression which is often rendered literally “She fell on her face, bowing to the ground.” The two expressions (“fell … bowing…”) represent a measure of redundancy. The custom was that the person kneeled down in front of the other who was to be honored and inclined himself until touching the ground with his forehead, as the Muslims do during prayer. It is rare that one can translate literally “she fell on her face,” since this tends to be understood as being accidental rather than intentional. The Hebrew verb implies a downward movement which could be voluntary (for example, “descend from a chariot,” 2 Kgs 5.21) or involuntary (for example, “fall from a roof,” Deut 22.8). Here it is, of course, a voluntary movement. Some translators employ a phrase such as “to cast oneself down,” but this again is a rather strange rendering, since it seems to imply some kind of violent activity rather than simply homage and gratitude. Accordingly, Good News Translation employs the expression bowed down with her face touching the ground. In some languages it may even be necessary to translate “bowed very low, touching her forehead to the ground,” since in many receptor cultures this is the equivalent expression.

Said to Boaz must be rendered in some languages as “asked Boaz,” “inquired of Boaz,” since what follows is a question.

Be so concerned about translates what is in Hebrew literally “found favor in your eyes” (see comments on verse 2). The emphasis here is upon the favor which Boaz had shown to Ruth and thus “to be kind to” is appropriate. It is also possible to combine “kindness” with “taking notice of,” and so to translate “Why are you so kind as to take notice of me?”

In the Hebrew expression translated often as “take notice of me when I am a foreigner,” there is a pun on the roots of the verb and the noun. hakkireni and nakriyyah. According to Th. Nöldeke (k Neue Beiträge zur semitischen Sprachwissenschaft, 1910, page 96) both items stem from the same root nkr with the meaning “als fremd, d.h. mit Aufmerksamkeit betrachten.” Recent dictionaries, however, rightly make a semantic distinction between two roots nkr I and nkr II. Some translators try to introduce a play on words in a corresponding English translation such as “to deal with me as a friend though I am a foreigner,” though in this instance there is very little resemblance between the sounds. A better example of assonance is to be found in German in the text of the Zürcher Bibel: “… und mich so freundlich beachtest? Ich bin ja nur eine Fremde.” It is always nice to be able to reproduce a play on words in a source language, but it is only rarely that one can do so with success. Attempts to reproduce a play on words frequently result in a rather artificial kind of expression.

A foreigner may be rendered in some languages as “someone not from this country,” “a person from a different tribe,” or “someone from a distant country” (or “another country”). In this context “distant” is purely a relative matter, but it is often used as a means of designating a foreigner.

The statement by Ruth that she is a foreigner is important in the development of the story. This prepares the ground for Boaz’s statement beginning in verse 11. Midrash Rabbah to Ruth, in referring to lehakkireni, already makes the future course of the story explicit: “she prophesied that he would know her in the way of all people” (i.e., as his wife).

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 clause and I think you ought to know about it is in Hebrew literally “and I thought I would uncover your ear.” The Hebrew verb often translated “thought” is in this context much better translated as “I have decided.” To “uncover the ear” is merely a figure of speech meaning “to inform.” See Baumgartner, s.v. galah. Compare also Accadian uznâ puttu and Dhorme, Emploi métaphorique, page 89. It would be interesting to retain this metaphor or to use a similar metaphor in a receptor language, but rarely can one do so. Septuagint seems to give a literal translation of the Hebrew: apokalupsō to ous sou. It is highly questionable, however, whether this is idiomatic Greek. Sometimes an approximate expression may be employed; for example, “to open your ears” or “to cause your ears to hear.”

Now then … then to me is a rather complex construction in Hebrew. It could be translated somewhat literally as “saying, buy (it) in the presence of those sitting (here) and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem (it), redeem (it); but if you will not redeem (it), With many Hebrew manuscripts, Targum, Syriac version, Septuagint, and Vulgate, one should read the second person singular instead of the third person singular. tell me, that I may know, for there is no one beside you to redeem (it), and I am after you.”

This structure can be followed somewhat literally by interpreting the first verb of “saying” as “suggesting,” that is, “suggesting that you buy it” (see Smith-Goodspeed). This type of rendering depends, however, to some extent upon the rendering of the verb “redeem.” If the verb which in Hebrew is often translated “redeem” is translated as “to help out as a relative” or “to do your duty as a relative,” one can translate “if you want to do your duty as a relative, then do so” (cf. New English Bible). In this particular context the specific duty of the relative was to buy the land, and therefore in many languages it is more satisfactory to follow Good News Translation and translate buy it in the presence of these men sitting here. It is also possible to combine the concept of being a relative with the buying of the land, by translating “if you want to do your duty as a relative in buying the land,” but this may turn out to be a rather heavy construction in some languages.

There may be confusion about the references of the word it in verse 4. In the first instance (to know about it), it may refer either to the field or to the fact that Naomi wanted to sell the field. In some languages one must make the reference specific, either as “I have decided to tell you about the field” or “… that Naomi wants to sell the field.” The second it (if you want it) is best rendered as “the field”; for example, “if you want the field.” The third and following uses of it are all reference to the field. In some languages “the field” must be used in all instances, but in most cases some kind of pronominal reference to the field is more natural.

Say so is better translated in some languages as “tell me” or even “tell us,” since the elders who were present served as witnesses to this agreement or transaction.

The right to buy it belongs first to you may need to be somewhat restructured as “you are the first one to have the right to buy it” or “you come ahead of me in being able to buy it.”

The man said is more appropriately translated in some languages as “the man responded,” since his statement is in response to the offer of Boaz.

I will buy it involves a form of the Hebrew verb which indicates a rather weak answer, not a particularly firm or definite one. See Joüon, par. 112-113. A firm, definite answer should be expressed by the qatal form. Compare Haller’s translation: “Ich will es schon lösen,” or BJ: “Oui, je veux bien racheter.” This subtly suggests that he may want to back out of the arrangement, even as he does in verse 6.

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 7 is rather awkward to render literally, “so she set out from the place where she was, with her two daughters-in-law, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah.” Even some ancient versions have made adaptations of this Hebrew text in order to obtain a smoother rendering; for example, “she set out” is changed to “they set out,” since obviously all of them went together. So certain editions of the Syriac text. The third person plural is also found in some Septuagint manuscripts; the omission of “on the way” occurs also in the Old Latin. The expression “on the way” is sometimes deleted, and in some instances the second part of verse 7 is omitted as being unnecessary information, since the data has already been implied in verse 6. So the Targum. However, rather than delete the second part of verse 7, it is possible to combine it with verse 8 as New American Bible does: “she and her two daughters-in-law left the place where they had been living. Then as they were on the road back to the land of Judah….” Note how the text is restructured in Good News Translation.

One of the problems involved in rendering verse 7 is that not all of the relevant information is given in the Hebrew text. From what follows later in chapter 1, it seems quite clear that Naomi did not invite her daughters-in-law to follow her. She apparently only informed them of her intentions of going, and they took the initiative to go along with her. In order to point out clearly that the conversation, beginning with verse 8, began only after the journey had started, the latter part of verse 7 can be conveniently rendered as to go back to Judah. Perhaps the actual conversation took place at the border between Moab and Judah in the Jordan valley.

Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Ruth. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Verse 23 serves as a summary of the contents of chapter 2, but it seems to provide no clue as to further developments in the story. Yet there is a suggestion for the transition which occurs in the following verse, the first verse of chapter 3. Chapter 2 ends with Ruth living with her mother-in-law, but the first verse of chapter 3 contains Naomi’s declaration that she should seek a home for Ruth, since a permanent arrangement for Ruth would obviously be more satisfactory than continuing indefinitely with her mother-in-law. Thus, though the text of verse 23 does not seem to provide a clue as to the rest of the story, in fact it actually does. It is the issue of a permanent home and relationship which is regarded as so essential for Ruth.

It is important to recognize that verse 23 is a type of summary, and therefore a particle such as So is quite appropriate. This may be rendered as “And therefore,” “And as a result,” or “In keeping with this.”

It would be wrong to translate the first clause of verse 23, Ruth worked with them, in such a way as to give the impression that Ruth was hired by Boaz as one of his servants. Rather, she continued to gather or to glean on the same basis as Boaz had specified to his servants in verse 16. It is rather misleading to follow the Revised Standard Version translation, “she kept close to the maidens of Boaz,” since this could imply quite a different dimension of relationship.

Until all the barley and wheat had been harvested can be restructured as “till the harvester had cut and brought in all the barley and wheat,” which is somewhat more specific.

In some of the ancient versions, the final clause, And she continued to live with her mother-in-law, is placed at the beginning of chapter 3, So in the Vulgate and in the Syriac version. but there seems to be no special need to follow this division. NAB is one of the rare exceptions in which this versional division is followed. It may be useful, however, to introduce the last clause with an expression such as “After that” (that is to say, “After the work in the field”). One is not advised to follow the alternative Hebrew reading, “and she returned to her mother-in-law.” This reading has very little textual support and seems clearly secondary, since it appears to be only a smoother transition from the first statement to the second. The alternative Hebrew reading (with different vocalization of the same consonants of the verbal form and change of ʾet- into ʾel-) found in two manuscripts of Kennicott is followed by the Vulgate. Among the older translations, Luther is in favor of this reading, though he places it at the end of the second chapter. Among the newer translations, NAB apparently tries to combine both readings in stating “when she was back with her mother-in-law” at the beginning of chapter 3 (see note 83).

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 .