Translation commentary on Ruth 3:4

Lift the covers renders what is in Hebrew literally “uncover the place of his feet.” The meaning of what Ruth did was essentially to ask for Boaz’s protection. So rightly Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc.: “sich als Bittstellerin in seinen Schutz begeben.” Of course, the idea of a marriage proposal may very well have been implicit in the act, Compare George A. F. Knight, Ruth and Jonah (The Torch Bible Commentaries), 1960, ad loc.: “Ruth’s act in lying at Boaz’s feet is not to be judged an indelicate act from our standard of ethical thinking. Such was the accepted manner in which a woman could propose marriage to a man.” However, it surely was a hazardous act from the standard of Jewish ethical thinking. As we have to do with an isolated instance in the Old Testament, it may be going too far to speak of an “accepted manner.” but there is no clear evidence that this expression is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as has been suggested by some scholars. For H. G. May (JRAS, 1939, pages 75 ff.) and W. E. Staples (k The Book of Ruth, AJSL 53, 1937, pages 153 ff.), this is an instance of sacred prostitution which took place at Bethlehem’s high place. The six measures of barley which Boaz gave to Ruth are interpreted as the hire of a sacred prostitute. Needless to say that such an interpretation makes the whole story incoherent. On the other hand, the Hebrew terms translated “uncover,” “feet,” and “lie down” are often associated with sexual acts, and therefore the expression lends itself to this type of interpretation. It must be said that most verbs in this verse are frequently used as euphemisms for sexual intercourse in other contexts as: yadaʿ, shakab, boʾ, galah. Though the noun margelot is only found once outside the book of Ruth (in Daniel 10.6, where it is no euphemism), it is easily associated with a noun as raglayim, which is used as a euphemism for the male sex organ in, e.g., Exodus 4.25. Even some ancient translators tried in several ways to weaken or alter the meaning. The Syriac translator did so in omitting the expression “uncovered” and in only stating: “lie down at his feet.” The Targum has an additional phrase in the last part of the verse: “He will tell you through his wisdom what to do.”

Since it is altogether possible that what Ruth did may be misunderstood in a receptor culture, it is appropriate to have some marginal note at this point indicating that what Ruth did was a symbolic way of asking for protection. In fact, in some translations the meaning of the act is incorporated into the text itself, for example, “lift up the cover at his feet to ask for his protection.” This may be done on the basis that the act itself was a recognized symbol for asking for security.

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 2:3

Since verse 3 begins with the result of what was anticipated in the dialogue between Ruth and Naomi, it is appropriate to introduce it by a particle such as So. In other languages the equivalent may be “Therefore,” “As a result,” or “And so then.”

It may be important in some languages to specify more clearly the kind of fields; for example, “fields of grain” or “fields where grain was being cut” (the equivalent of “harvest fields”).

The workers in this context would in some languages be “the harvesters,” “the men cutting the grain,” or “the men gathering the grain.”

Picking up the heads of grain may be ambiguous in some languages, since it might seem to imply that Ruth was likewise harvesting. Therefore it may be necessary to repeat what has already been said in verse 2, namely, “picking up heads of grain which had been left.”

Verse 3 is to some extent repetitious of what has already been included in verses 1 and 2. This fact was already sensed by some ancient translators. The second verb in the sequence “set forth-went-gleaned” is omitted in most Septuagint manuscripts, Peshitta, and Vulgate. It is also possible to understand the first part of verse 3 as a conclusion to verse 2, while the second part of the verse could be the introduction to the section beginning with verse 4. On the other hand, the two parts of verse 3 can be closely combined as in New American Bible: “The field she entered to glean after the harvesters happened to be the section belonging to Boaz of the clan of Elimelech.” Though NAB’s translation, “The field she entered to glean after the harvesters happened to be the section belonging to Boaz of the clan of Elimelech,” disregards the place of the disjunctive accent atnach.

It so happened translates what is in Hebrew more or less literally “her chance lighted upon a field.” This Hebrew construction occurs elsewhere only in Ecclesiastes 2.14-15, in a context where the noun is normally rendered as “fate.” It is, however, questionable whether any distinction can be made between “chance” and “fate” in the Hebrew. Hebrew miqreh does occur in other places (1 Sam 6.9; 20.26) with the meaning “accident,” but the construction wayyiqer miqreh is typical of Ecclesiastes (see the dictionaries). This should warn one against making too artificial (and too modern!) a distinction between the meanings in Ruth and Ecclesiastes. Tamisier’s statement (op. cit., ad loc.), “cette circonstance fortuite élimine tout plan préconçu,” may be true on the sentence level; it is certainly not true on the level of the discourse. Gerleman (op. cit., ad loc.) first makes the distinction between “chance” and “fate” and then abolishes the same distinction in saying that Yahweh dictates the “chance.” He is nevertheless right, only not in his formulation, since he fails to reason on the two different levels, that of sentence and that of discourse. Septuagint in vocalizing miqreh instead of miqreha (“chance” for “her chance”) and in reading thus periptomati (by “lucky chance”) [see H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1951, s.v.] may have been aware of the ambiguity of the Hebrew expression and may have solved the problem on the sentence level. On the other hand, some translations, though perhaps not consciously, operate on two levels at the same time. So Dhorme “sa chance voulut” and BJ “sa chance la conduisit.” This is a happy solution in French, but in a number of languages, where one cannot have an inanimate subject of an event, it cannot be applied.

The context of the Book of Ruth would seem to indicate clearly that people are not in a position to change the course of history and, therefore, that it is really not by chance that Ruth arrives at the field of Boaz. It is evidently the action of Yahweh himself which determines such “happenings.” As a result, most modern English versions use expressions such as “happened” (Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, New American Bible), but in a sense this may be said not to do full justice to the Hebrew text. On the other hand, it would be out of keeping with the context to emphasize too explicitly the aspect of “chance.” Moffatt has in this context “it was her fortune to come upon,” and one might very well translate as “she was fortunate to come upon.” It would not be appropriate merely to translate: “she had the good luck to go to 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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:15

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:17

As already noted, verse 17 concludes the account of Ruth’s gathering grain in the field of Boaz. It begins with a particle translated So, which indicates result and which may be translated in some languages “As a result,” “And so at the end,” or “And thus finally.”

Until evening is most generally rendered “until the sun went down,” “until the sun could be seen no longer,” or “until the sun had disappeared.”

The Hebrew verb translated beaten … out occurs elsewhere only in Judges 6.11 and in Isaiah 28.27, where it has this same literal meaning of threshing out small quantities of grain by knocking them loose from the stalk by means of a curved stick, club, or wooden hammer. See Dalman, op. cit., III, page 92. One ancient version makes the instrument explicit by translating “she beat with a stick what she had gleaned.” So Septuagint in using the Greek verb rabdizo. Another translation makes explicit both the instrument and the two events of hitting the heads of barley and driving out the grain: “she beat with a stick what she had gleaned and drove out the grains.” So the Vulgate reading: et quae collegerat virga caedens et excutiens. The latter translation is an excellent descriptive model for those languages which lack a technical term for “beating out.” In some instances, however, one must use a causative expression, such as “cause to fall out” or “cause to become loose.”

Though there is no indication of precisely where this threshing takes place, it no doubt was done in the field. Compare P. Perdrizet’s remark in Syria, 1938, page 48: “Les moissonneurs de Syrie ne ramassent pas les gerbes en meules; ils battent le blé sitôt coupé au moyen de rouleaux de pierre ou de traîneaux garnis par-dessous de silex tranchants; ou, si la récolte est minime, avec une baguette, comme on le voit faire dans la Bible à Ruth la Moabite pour les épis qu’elle avait glanés.” The Hebrew expression which is rendered in Good News Translation as nearly twenty-five pounds is literally “about an ephah of barley,” but there is no certainty as to what this measurement implied. Some scholars believe that it was approximately 40 liters; See R. G. Bratcher, “Weights, money, measures and time,” The Bible Translator 10 (1959):169, 173; J. Trinquet, “Métrologie biblique,” Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris, 1928- , t. 5, col. 1221-1238. others agree that the ephah was approximately 40 liters during the Hellenistic period, but cannot say what it was earlier. So, e.g., R. Tamisier, op. cit., ad loc.; A. G. Barrois, Manuel d’archéologie biblique, I, II, 1939-1953. The reference here is to II, page 250. Archaeological findings may some day provide us with reliable information, See R. de Vaux, op. cit., pages 306, 307. Our lack of knowledge condemns “tout essai de donner, pour la période de l’Ancien Testament, un tableau d’équivalence avec notre système moderne” (page 306). but with the information now available it is impossible to give an exact equivalent of the ephah of the time of Ruth. The translator, however, must employ something in his text, and there are three major possibilities: (1) he may simply transliterate the Hebrew measure, with or without some explanatory note; (2) he may employ a receptor-language term which represents a measure more or less equivalent to the Hebrew term; or (3) he may use a combination of the source-language term as well as some receptor-language equivalent, as was done in one of the ancient versions. So Vulgate: invenit hordei quasi oephi mensuram id est tres modios. In keeping with the first procedure, he would simply use “ephah” in the text (see New American Bible), with possibly a footnote or a symbol to show that it is explained in a table of weights and measures or glossary. In keeping with the second procedure, the translator could use a second term such as “bushel” (see New English Bible and Moffatt). Following the third procedure, he would use an expression such as “it was about an ephah, that is to say, a basketful of barley.” In this case the term for “basket” would have to be a measure essentially equivalent to an ephah in the Hellenistic period, that is about 40 liters or 40 quarts. For many speakers of English the term “bushel” is a rarity, and quantities of grain are more often described in terms of weight rather than bulk. For this reason Good News Translation uses the expression nearly twenty-five pounds. In some instances translators may simply employ a rendering which implies that the amount of grain was considerable: “a good measure of grain” or “a lot of grain.” That would emphasize the fact that this was an abundant result for the day’s work. Such a translation has interesting ancient support. The Syriac version states, in a qualitative way, “a full measure.”

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 4:9

The sequence of events is clearly marked here by the particle Then, which may be rendered somewhat more specifically in some languages as “and next” or “and after that.”

And all the others there is in Hebrew literally “and all the people.” It will be necessary to understand with one manuscript of Wright, Septuagint, Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate: “and to all the people.” This does not refer to all the people of the town, but to “all the people present” or “all those who were there.” This is appropriately rendered in English as all the others there.

You are all witnesses today may be translated in some languages as “You have all seen today.” In other languages, however, the role of a witness must be explained not only in terms of what people have seen, but also what they can later confirm; for example, “You have all seen today that I have bought from Naomi everything that belonged to Elimelech and to Chilion and Mahlon, and later you can tell folks that you have seen this happen” or “You have all seen today, and later you can explain how I have bought from Naomi everything….”

That I have bought indicates that the action belongs to the past, but the Hebrew tense of the verb shows quite clearly that this is an action which is accomplished at the very moment the words are spoken See Joüon, par. 112-113: “j’acquiers (hic et nunc, par mes paroles).” (cf. Smith-Goodspeed “I am buying”).

From Naomi is in Hebrew literally “at (from) the hand of Naomi.” This is a typical Hebrew idiom which can rarely be translated literally into other languages. The “hand” is a symbol for possession.

The relation of Chilion and Mahlon to the property is somewhat different from that of Elimelech, since the two sons inherited from their father. This must be made somewhat more explicit in some languages as “everything that belonged first to Elimelech, and accordingly to Chilion and Mahlon” or, even more explicitly, “everything that belonged first to Elimelech and then to his sons, Chilion and Mahlon.”

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 1:14

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:5

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 .

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:4

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 .