At mealtime is the temporal setting for the event of speaking; this is in full accord with the syntactic division of the Hebrew text, though it is different from what is found in one of the ancient versions. In many Septuagint manuscripts the time setting is part of Boaz’s speech: “It is now time to eat.” It is always possible that ēdē hōra is a simple scribal error for tēj dē hōraj, a reading which occurs in some other Septuagint manuscripts. See also Joüon, par. 15. In some languages, however, one cannot employ a phrase such as “at mealtime.” Rather, a clause is needed, such as “when it was time to eat” or “when the people began to eat.”

For the term bread, see the comments on 1.6. This is essentially a term with generic meaning, often translatable as “food.” In some instances it may be better to translate it as “have something to eat.”

It is important to indicate in an expression such as have a piece of bread that this is something which Boaz is giving to Ruth. He is not commanding her to eat her own food, but rather is offering her something. This may be expressed in some languages as “let me give you a piece of bread,” “I want to give you a piece of bread,” or “take this piece of bread.”

Sauce represents a Hebrew expression which is often translated merely as “wine,” for the liquid seems to have been a kind of sour wine. Compare J. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, I, 1924, pages 102 ff., and G. Dalman, op. cit., III, page 18, and IV, page 388. The Syriac reading chalba (“milk”) can be interpreted as a scribal error for challa (“vinegar”). Such an error may have had a cultural background, as the custom described in Ruth 2.14 was not widespread. This is the only allusion to it in the Old Testament., A parallel solution is to be found in the BJ: “trempe ton morceau dans la piquette.”

In this context the expression the workers is literally “the reapers,” but this is not restricted to the male servants. It is better, therefore, to employ a general expression such as the workers, rather than place Ruth exclusively with the male servants or segregate her with the female servants. Such a separation would likewise be inappropriate in view of the fact that Boaz passed the roasted grain to Ruth, who evidently was not sitting far from him.

The verb translated passed, referring to Boaz’s act of giving roasted grain to Ruth, occurs only at this point in the Old Testament, and its meaning is uncertain. Even in late Hebrew the verb is very rare and used only in contexts describing that part of a vessel or jar which one touches in handling it. So Chagigah 22b (Talmud). For other references see Jastrow, s.v. tsabat. Translators of ancient versions did not understand the meaning of this Hebrew verb, and they read into it another Hebrew verb meaning “to heap up.” Septuagint and Vulgate. The Greek verb bounizō (which is found only in Septuagint Greek) may translate a Hebrew verb tsabar. It should, however, be noted that Septuagint uses a form of the same verb bounizō to translate the Hebrew noun tsebatim in 2.16. So it is not to be excluded that the Greek translator of Ruth thought of a verbal root tsbt in spite of its nonoccurrence in biblical Hebrew. The Chaldaic form of the verb (tsebat) is attested in the Talmud (Chullin 60a) with the meaning “to present.” Could the Greek translator have thought of such a meaning, and could he have marked the quantity which was presented by way of interpretation? The object alphiton may also have influenced the translation of the verb! The reading of the Vulgate congessit may come from the Greek. This reading is also found in some modern translations So, e.g., BJ: et Booz lui fit aussi un tas de grains rôtis. and is defended by some commentators who argue that the meaning of “to pass” would be incorrect in speaking of what Boaz did. So, e.g., R. Tamisier, op. cit., ad loc. However, the meaning of “to heap up” should not be employed. There is just a slight possibility that the verb had reference to some particular process in the preparation of the grain, Compare Gerleman (op. cit., ad loc), who refers to Ugaritic msbtm (“pair of tongs”) and Arabic and Ethiopic dabata (“to hold firmly”). but since there is no certainty with regard to the meaning of the term, the rendering of “to pass” seems to be the most satisfactory, at least until new evidence as to its meaning is found.

Roasted grain is very common food in the Middle East Compare Dalman, op. cit., III, pages 265-266. and is greatly appreciated in many other parts of the world. There should therefore be no difficulty in finding an appropriate equivalent.

Until she was satisfied should not be translated in such a way as to imply that she was in any way gluttonous; what is important is to indicate that Boaz was sufficiently generous to her to make her feel satisfied and happy. Until she was satisfied is often rendered “until she had had enough,” “until she felt good,” “until she had all she wanted,” or “until she was no longer hungry.”

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 text of this verse in Hebrew is literally “and this was (the custom) This is the text of Targum, Syriac version, and Septuagint. Even if this was not the original Hebrew text, it is clearly implicit information which has to be made explicit in translation. in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm A piel instead of a hiphil or polel form as we should expect. Compare Gesenius-Kautzsch, par. 72. Moreover, the verbal form shows clearly Aramaic influences; see Joüon, par. 80. a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was (the manner of) attesting in Israel.” In rendering this verse it is necessary in a number of languages to make certain aspects explicit. One must often clearly indicate the objects of redeeming and exchanging. Good News Translation does this by stating a sale or an exchange of property, and then makes both parties explicit by speaking of seller and buyer. This interprets the ceremony of the shoe as a general witness of a contract for the sale of property. This is a possible interpretation and it is defended by some commentators. So A. R. S. Kennedy, The Book of Ruth, 1928, page 57, and also G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ruth, 1918, page 15. It may be, however, that the ceremony involving the shoe is not a general one to mark the sale of property, but it may be restricted to situations involving relatives and the abandonment of one’s normal responsibility or the transfer of the right of a relative to acquire property on behalf of a dead person. If that is the case, the near relative neither bought nor sold anything; it was only later that Boaz bought the property from Naomi, and in that instance there is no indication of the ceremony of passing a shoe. It is possible that the shoe was regarded as a kind of symbol of power in Israel, as elsewhere, Parallels to this extent have been cited from India, Egypt, and the Nuzi texts. See the literature quoted in Rowley, art. cit., notes 37-40. See also J. M. Mittelmann, Der altisraelitische Levirat, 1934, page 21. and the taking off of the sandal or shoe indicated the surrendering of power or rights. Within the Old Testament, the throwing of a sandal upon a piece of land did mean taking possession of it (Psalm 60.8 {Psalm 60.10 in the Hebrew text.}), and in the present instance the reversal of the process is true: taking off the sandal meant abandonment of any right to the property. For the complicated relationship between Ruth 4.7 and Deuteronomy 25.9, see especially Rowley, op. cit., page 86. It is, therefore, somewhat dangerous to be too explicit in rendering this verse, and it may be preferable to translate “whenever property was acquired and rights exchanged” or “whenever people took property or exchanged rights to property.” For the same reason, it may be preferable to state “a man” and “the other (party)” instead of seller and buyer.

There may be certain problems involved in obtaining a satisfactory rendering for sandal. Sometimes a term for sandal indicates the footwear of particularly poor persons or, in some situations, footwear used only for recreation or sport. If this is the case, it would be better to use a general designation for footwear which would include sandals.

In this way the Israelites showed that the matter was settled may require certain modifications in some languages; for example, “the people of Israel had this custom of showing that a matter was settled,” “… a transaction was finished,” “… the agreement was final,” or “… that the people had decided.”

The inclusion of the information in verse 7 indicates that this practice was not widely known at the time the Book of Ruth was written; otherwise it would not have been necessary to introduce this explanation. The necessity for making this kind of explanation concerning an apparently widespread custom of earlier times would suggest a considerable lapse of time between the events described and their being put into the literary form of this book.

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 .

You must go back represents an imperative expression in Hebrew. However, it should not be interpreted as a harsh command, but simply as strong advice. In some languages the closest equivalent would be “It is best for you to go back” or “You should go back.”

One must make certain that my daughters is satisfactorily rendered to identify “daughters-in-law.” In some languages a shift of terminology at this point could be very misleading.

The term answered is quite appropriate in English, but in some languages there are two different verbs, one used for answering a question and the other for responding to a statement. It is the latter meaning which is involved in this context.

Do you think I could have sons again is a rendering of a Hebrew idiom meaning literally “Have I yet sons in my womb?” (cf. Gen 25.23 and Psa 71.6 Compare E. Dhorme, Emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps, Paris, 1923, page 136.). One ancient translation changed the expression “in my womb” to something more euphemistic: “Do I yet have sons?” So the Syriac version. It is also possible in this context to follow the rendering of New English Bible: “Am I likely to bear any more sons to be husbands for you?” This is a direct reference to the levirate right, in which a man was obliged to marry the wife of his deceased brother. It may be necessary at this point to have an explanatory marginal note; otherwise, Naomi’s rhetorical question may seem utterly foolish.

When a rhetorical question implies such a definite negative answer as the last question in verse 11, it is appropriate in a number of languages to indicate this fact, often by a negative phrase appended to or incorporated into the question; for example, “I couldn’t still have sons for you to marry, could I?” In many languages, however, this type of rhetorical question must be changed into a negative statement; for example, “I certainly could not bear sons who would grow up and marry you.”

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 .

Wash yourself should be understood in the sense of “to bathe” (New American Bible).

Put on some perfume represents a Hebrew expression normally translated as “to anoint.” An exception to this rule is BJ, which translates correctly: “parfume-toi.” One of the difficulties involved in using a word meaning “to anoint” is that this is a very generalized expression in Hebrew and would not necessarily be understood in this context to mean “anoint with good-smelling oils.” Therefore it seems better to be somewhat more specific than the Hebrew text and to translate “put on some perfume,” since this was certainly the meaning of Naomi’s instructions to Ruth.

The rendering get dressed in your best clothes is a very satisfactory idiomatic equivalent of the Hebrew expression. However, it is true that most Hebrew manuscripts simlotayik is the reading of Q and 7 MSS. have at this point a singular noun, and one may therefore appropriately translate “put on your best cloak.” This may very well refer to a large piece of cloth worn as an outer garment, but this is not the mantle or cloak mentioned in verse 15 which Ruth used to carry home the relatively large quantity of barley.

Rather than merely go where he is threshing, the Hebrew specifies “go down to the threshing floor.” This would imply that the threshing floor was situated at a point lower than the town of Bethlehem, but there is no specific information as to its location. Bethlehem was built on two hills. So for Haller (op. cit., ad loc.) the threshing floor was to be found on the lower hill. On the other hand, Hertzberg (op. cit., ad loc.), exploring local tradition about the “field of Boaz,” thinks that the threshing floors of Bethlehem were to be found on the same spot where in our time the threshing floors of the village Beit Sahur, a village east of Bethlehem, are located. Midrash on Ruth only concludes from the use of the verb that the threshing floors were to be found on low spots. Where languages do employ rather precise indications of movement, such as “going up” or “going down,” one should attempt to follow the Hebrew usage, but the indication of elevation in this context is by no means crucial or particularly significant.

What is rendered in Good News Translation as don’t let him know you are there represents a Hebrew expression which may be translated literally as “do not make yourself known to the man” (Revised Standard Version). The obvious meaning here is “do not let yourself be recognized by him.” See Joüon, par. 132, note 2. The Hebrew expression must be restructured in a number of languages; for example, “do not let your presence be known to the man,” “don’t let him recognize that you are there,” or “don’t let him know who you are.” Even some ancient translators recognized the need for restructuring and translated the Hebrew expression as “do not show yourself to him.” So Syriac version. Gerleman rightly sees that this variant reading does not presuppose a different Vorlage.

In this context drinking refers to the drinking of wine or some other alcoholic beverage. In some languages the process of eating and drinking is represented by a single verb.

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 this short dialogue between Ruth and Naomi, the first verb in the Hebrew text introduces a desire on the part of Ruth, and it is followed by a particle which is roughly equivalent to “please” in English. Naomi’s answer is in the form of an imperative which expresses permission. Compare Joüon, par. 114, n. On the deprecative interjection -naʾ, see par. 105. Semantically, no politeness seems to be involved in its use. In many receptor languages the most natural equivalents would be “May I go to the fields to glean…?” and “Yes, go, my daughter.” Since there is a question followed by a response, it is often useful to have for the first verb of speaking a term such as “ask” or “request”—for example, “Ruth asked Naomi”—followed by a term such as “answer” or “reply”—for example, “Naomi responded.”

The name Ruth at the beginning of verse 2 is followed immediately by the emphasis upon her being a Moabite, so that literally the text reads “Ruth the Moabitess.” However, it is by no means always necessary to repeat this identification, For the Syriac translator also, this repetition seems to be superfluous. In 2.21, where he also omits “Moabitess,” he is even joined by Septuagint and Vulgate. though perhaps in the Hebrew text the repetition does have emphasis and may be a none-too-subtle way by which the author keeps reminding the reader of Ruth’s foreign background. (See comment on 1.22.)

In a number of languages there may be no technical term for “gleaning,” which means gathering up the heads of grain which the harvest workers left behind by accident. In many societies such a practice is simply not economically profitable, while in other parts of the world such grain is left on the ground for animals to eat. It is, of course, always possible to describe gleaning as “gathering up the heads of grain which were left behind by the harvest workers,” and it may be useful, therefore, to refer to certain Old Testament passages in which gleaning is mentioned (Lev 19.9-10; 23.22; Deut 24.19-22). It may even be useful to introduce a footnote; for example, “According to the law of the Hebrews, strangers, widows, orphans, and other poor people had the right to collect the ears of grain which had fallen from the hands of the reapers and were left behind in the field.”

That the harvest workers leave states explicitly what is implied in the Hebrew text. However, the harvest workers may require some explanation in certain languages, possibly a descriptive phrase which will more precisely designate what these people were doing; for example, “those who were cutting the grain,” “those who were harvesting the grain,” or “those who were gathering in the grain from the fields.”

Someone who will let me work with him is literally in Hebrew “after him in whose eyes I shall find favor.” This involves a rather frequent Hebrew idiom which occurs again in verses 10 and 13—though in the latter instance it is used primarily to indicate gratitude. In verse 2, however, it primarily involves permission, and it is translated in the New English Bible as “behind anyone who will grant me that favor.”

Go ahead is an idiomatic way of saying in English “Proceed to do what you have suggested.” In some languages this may be translated as “Go and do it” or “Do that.”

The word daughter, as has been noted in other instances, may need to be translated as “my daughter-in-law.” In fact, in some languages other terms of respect may be required, as Wendland states:
Instead of replying “Go, my child,” to Ruth’s request, Naomi would have sounded more idiomatic in Chewa by saying, “Alright, mother.” The first word shows her agreement with the request, the appellation shows her respect for her daughter-in-law. The use of personal names is completely taboo in such face-to-face dialogues. Wendland, The Cultural Factor, page 172.

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 .

The introductory particle translated So may be rendered in some languages as “Accordingly.” The action in verse 8 illustrates exactly the custom described in verse 7. The relation between the two verses may be indicated by “in accordance with this” or “just like that.”

The imperative expression You buy it may be more appropriately expressed as permission in some languages; for example, “You may buy it yourself,” “It is now your privilege to buy it,” “It is now your responsibility to buy it,” or “It is now up to you to buy it.”

The final phrase of verse 8, and gave it to Boaz, does not occur in the Hebrew text, but it is attested by some early translations. So Septuagint and Arabic version. This phrase may reflect the wording of a similar expression in verse 7, So Dhorme, op. cit., ad loc. but it may also indicate that an original Hebrew phrase has been lost. This seems to be Haller’s opinion. Regardless of what may or may not have been the original Hebrew text, in some languages the narrative style requires such an addition. One may also wish to add at this point a marginal note to indicate that this phrase occurs in all Greek manuscripts but is lacking in the Hebrew text. Apart from TEV, no modern translation consulted has this reading.

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 .