Though the term Again seems necessary in view of the intervening statement by Naomi, the emphasis of the Hebrew word is upon the continuation of the weeping. See Gesenius-Buhl and Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. ʿod. This meaning may be expressed as “they wept still more.”

The phrase started crying reflects the same expressions occurring in 1.9, which in Hebrew is literally “lifted up their voices and wept.”

Though the term for kissed in verse 14 is the same as in verse 9, it may be necessary to use some quite different expression, such as “embraced,” because of the connotations of the word kissed. Furthermore, in some languages there may be a different term used because of the difference of social position between Orpah and Naomi.

There is almost always some technical term to designate mother-in-law, but if this does not exist, one can employ some descriptive expression; for example, “the mother of her husband,” or, as in this context, “the mother of her deceased husband.”

As in verse 9, it may be necessary to translate kissed … good-bye as “kissed and said good-bye.”

At this point (that is, between … good-bye and but Ruth …) the Septuagint adds “and she went back to her people.” The Syriac version also has an extra expression, but a somewhat different wording: “she returned and went her way.” The fact that both extra expressions have a different wording makes it highly improbable that they were originally part of the primitive Hebrew text, as suggested by Dhorme (ad loc.). Instead we have to judge these extra expressions as good, early examples of the translation technique of making implicit information explicit. This information is, of course, implicit in the Hebrew text, and in some cases it may be necessary to make this fact explicit in translation.

The expression held on to is a translation of a Hebrew verb meaning “to cleave,” and it has the figurative meaning of loyalty and affection, as well as the meaning of being close to something or someone. A translation such as “to stay with” (New American Bible) is rather weak, and something like “remained close to her” may be understood only in the physical sense.

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 simply “and she said….” However, in view of the fact that there is a change in the one who is speaking, it is often better to make the subject (Ruth) explicit: “Ruth answered” or “Ruth responded” (see New American Bible, New English Bible, and Good News Translation).

In a number of Hebrew manuscripts and in various versions, the pronoun “me” is added. This variant reading is found in Q, in a number of manuscripts Kennicott de Rossi, and in the Ginsburg text. Moreover, it is also found in many Targum and Syriac manuscripts. Hence the statement of Ruth may be rendered as “I will do everything you have told me” or “… whatever you tell me” (New English Bible).

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 Hebrew verse 4 begins with an adverbial expression often translated “behold.” This is primarily a device to call special attention to the following expression, which in this case is the name of Boaz. However, in other languages a term denoting “behold” or “note” or “look” is often not appropriate. In English an equivalent expression might be “and there was Boaz coming” (New English Bible).

The verb arrived translates a perfect tense form in Hebrew, which suggests that the arrival of Boaz took place several hours after the events described in verse 3. This suggestion is confirmed by the statement in verse 7, which indicates that Ruth had already worked for some time in the field. Because of the lapse of time between verses 3 and 4, Good News Translation introduces a temporal transition at the beginning of verse 4, Some time later. This could also be expressed as “Then after several hours Boaz himself came.”

The expressions The LORD be with and The LORD bless you are conventional formulas of greetings still current in some related Semitic languages. There is no reason to see in these greetings an expression of a pious attitude (so Bertholet, op. cit., ad loc.) or to evaluate them as typical “harvest greetings” (so H. Gunkel, Ruth, Reden und Aufsätze, 1913, pages 65-92). Compare Arabic allah ma‘akum (“Allah be with you”) and the answer allah yachphadak (“may Allah protect you”). In the nominal phrase in Hebrew a verbal form with optative mood is implicit. See Joüon, par. 163. The Hebrew verb translated “bless” sometimes has the meaning of “greet,” as in 1 Samuel 13.10 and 2 Samuel 13.25 (a parting salutation). The expressions The LORD be with you and The LORD bless you have a strictly liturgical value in present-day language, and they may seem quite strange in receptor languages as expressions of greeting. Some translators feel that it may be useful to introduce at this point typical indigenous greetings and responses—Boaz might say, for example, to the harvesters, “Did you work well?” or even “How are you today?”—but this type of cultural adaptation fails to provide the religious setting to the greetings which is so important to this context. The fact that these expressions are greetings can, of course, be identified by the verb chosen to introduce them; for example, “Boaz greeted the workers by saying, ‘The LORD be with you,’ and the workers responded by greeting him in turn, ‘The LORD bless you.’ ” It is interesting to note that the Syriac translator in reading “peace with you” makes a type of cultural adaptation.

It seems perfectly appropriate to us to say in English The LORD be with you, but in some languages this is quite impossible, both semantically and grammatically; one cannot make this kind of command in the third person. It is possible, however, in some languages to employ an expression of direct discourse; for example, “I ask the LORD to be with you” or “I pray to the LORD that he will be with you.” Simply having the LORD “with a person” may not imply any special relationship, and therefore in some languages one must say “I pray that the LORD will help you” or “I ask that the LORD be good to you.”

Similarly, in the translation of The LORD bless you, it may be necessary for the workers to respond: “We pray that the LORD will be good to you” or “We ask that the LORD will show you favor.” The choice of an appropriate term for bless is particularly difficult in some languages, since there may be at least three different terms which render the English expression “bless”: (1) the blessing of a superior to an inferior (for example, “do good to” or “show favor to”); (2) the blessing of an inferior to a superior (for example, “praise”); and (3) a request for God to bless some object or person.

The position of expressions introducing direct discourse (in this case, the blessing formulas) must be determined by what is natural in the receptor language. More often than not, expressions introducing direct discourse (even such formulas as blessing and greetings) must occur before the direct discourse, rather than after it as in Good News Translation.

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 .

Most modern translations begin a new paragraph with verse 17, as Good News Translation does, but some have a new paragraph begin with verse 18 (see Jerusalem Bible). It is even possible to divide verse 18 and to take the first part as constituting a conclusion to the previous section. A new paragraph would then begin after the first clause took … back into town (see Moffatt). If this is done, it will be important to introduce the following clause with “Then Ruth showed to her mother-in-law how much she had gathered.” A break in the structure at this point obviously requires a more specific indication of who does what, and proper nouns must be used in place of pronouns, even as in some of the ancient versions. So Septuagint.

Showed her mother-in-law how much she had gathered is the reading of the Hebrew text in a few manuscripts, but all other manuscripts have “her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned.” The reading found in TEV is attested by two Hebrew manuscripts, according to C. H. H. Wright, The Book of Ruth in Hebrew with a Critically Revised Text, 1864, ad loc. Moreover, this reading is followed by the Syriac and Vulgate versions. The difference in the two readings involves merely a different way in which the vowels of the Hebrew verb are understood. Although the majority reading is no doubt more original, So Barthélemy, page 133. it is better to follow in this instance the text employed in Good News Translation, since this produces a far smoother sequence of events. It avoids the suggestion that after Ruth took the grain back into the town, her mother-in-law discovered how much she had gleaned, with the implication that Ruth did not tell her exactly what she had done.

She also gave her the food renders what is literally in Hebrew: “she brought out and gave her.” “Brought out” does not indicate the place from which she took the food. The term “cupboard” has been suggested, So Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. yatsaʾ (“food from one’s cupboard”). but there is no indication whatsoever as to what place is involved. It would be possible to translate the clause simply as “she also showed her mother-in-law the food that was left over from the meal.” So rightly Dhorme and BJ.

The last clause of the Hebrew text of verse 18 is literally “gave her what food she had left over after being satisfied.” This is a reference to what has already been stated in verse 14. A literal rendering of the Hebrew text may, however, lead to misunderstanding, since it could imply in some languages that Ruth was inconsiderate of Naomi and therefore had only reserved for Naomi what she did not want. It is better, therefore, to translate as “gave her the remainder of the food,” “gave her what she had left over from lunch” (New American Bible), or “gave her what she had saved from her meal” (New English Bible). New English Bible employs a very useful device of placing the modifying clause concerning the food earlier in the verse and stating in the last clause merely “gave it to 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 .

The phrase In addition may be rendered in some languages as “also,” but a fuller form may be required in certain instances; for example, “in addition to the property” or “but after the property also.”

It may be useful in this context to retain the expression the Moabite, perhaps in the form “the woman from Moab” or “the Moabite woman,” so as to emphasize satisfactorily the fact that Ruth was not of Jewish background.

For the translation of becomes my wife, see the comment on verse 5.

For the expression This will keep the property in the dead man’s family, see the notes on verse 5. It would be wrong, however, to suggest that Ruth becomes the wife of Boaz only in order to keep the property in the dead man’s family. Hence it may be useful to indicate clearly that this is a type of result; for example, “and as a result the property will remain in the dead man’s family” or “… in the family of Mahlon.”

And his family line will continue among his people is literally in Hebrew “that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brethren.” Good News Translation changes the passive expression to an active one and eliminates the rather difficult figurative expression “cut off from among” (a very common Hebrew figure).

In some languages it is essential to specify whose name is involved. This could be “the name of Mahlon.” But the focus throughout this passage has been upon the relationship of the various persons to Elimelech, and therefore one may translate “the name of Elimelech.”

In a number of languages one cannot speak about a “name continuing,” but it may be possible to employ some related expression, such as “that the name of Elimelech will not be missing (lacking, failing) among his brothers.”

For some languages the whole concept of name as a substitute for a person (or as in this context, for descendants) may be impossible, and therefore one may translate “that his descendants will not be lacking” or “that he may have descendants.” Semantically, the “cutting off of the name” remains in the same domain as the “cutting off of hope” (Pro 23.18; 24.14). See Kutsch’s article in THAT I, s.v. krt. On the other hand, shem is sometimes synonymous to zeraʿ so that “to cut off a name” means “to extirpate a family.” However, in this connection the verb krt is only used once, Isaiah 14.22.

In his hometown is literally in Hebrew “from the gate of his place.” For the significance of this expression, see the comments on 3.11.

You are witnesses to this today may be rendered as “You have seen this today and you can speak of it tomorrow.” In this way participating in an event and being able to confirm it at a later time are clearly indicated as the double role of a witness.

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 at the beginning of verse 15 has simply “and she said.” However, it is important to indicate clearly the translation between this paragraph and what has preceded by introducing some such particle as So. It may also be necessary to specify the participants, both Naomi and Ruth, Septuagint has “and Naomi said”; in the Syriac version we read: “and her mother-in-law said.” Compare also Moffatt and NEB. as in Good News Translation.

In a number of languages sister-in-law is rendered as “co-wife,” since in many societies the wives of brothers call each other “co-wives” or “co-spouses.” In some instances one may have to use a descriptive expression; for example, “the wife of your husband’s brother.” In a number of languages there are two quite distinct expressions for sister-in-law, one term designating a brother’s wife and the other term specifying the sister of one’s wife. These quite distinct relations may be marked by entirely different terms.

In some languages one cannot speak of her people or her god, for one does not possess a people or a god. The first expression may be rendered in some languages as “the tribe to which she belongs,” “the people of which she is a part,” or “the people with whom she is counted”; and her god may be rendered as “the god whom she worships” or “the god to whom she prays.”

Though a few translations have “gods,” there is no firm basis for using the plural. The god of the Moabites was Chemosh The Syriac translator of Ruth did not like the mention of pagan gods and therefore changed the expression into “to the house of her parents.” (see 1 Kgs 11.33).

In translating the term god one should generally use the most generic term for deity. See the discussion in Nida, Bible Translating, 13.1. However, if one normally uses an expression such as “the Eternal Spirit” as a translation of “God,” it would not be possible to use the same expression in this context. It might then be necessary to use some such expression as “the spirit whom she worships.”

The expression Go back home with her is emphatic, and some ancient translations even have an additional expression emphasizing the return. Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac version read: “return also yourself.” In order to show the relation between the advice to Ruth and what Orpah had already done, it may be useful to introduce an emphatic pronoun: “you yourself should go back home with 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 .

What Good News Translation has rendered as went is in Hebrew more specifically “went down.” See the comments on verse 3.

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 .