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 .

The Hebrew text of verse 17 is literally “and the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, A son has been born to Naomi. They named him Obed; he was the father of Jesse, the father of David.” This Hebrew text is rather redundant in its literal form, and therefore some restructuring is necessary in most receptor languages if one is to make the rendering clear and natural. Rather than repeat “gave him a name” and “they named him Obed,” it is usually better to translate “the women of the neighborhood named the boy Obed,” “they called the boy by the name of Obed,” “they said, ‘Obed is his name,’ ” or “they declared, ‘Obed will be his name.’ ” It is also possible to retain somewhat more of the Hebrew order by translating “the women of the neighborhood said, ‘A son has been born to Naomi’; and they named him Obed.” This restructuring already exists in an early translation. So the Syriac version. It should, however, be noted that such a restructuring may destroy the traces of a more primitive text in which (according to the typical Hebrew style of name giving), instead of shem, another name figured, alluding to yullad ben lenaʿomi, something like Yibleam (Gunkel, op. cit., ad loc.) or Ben Noam (Eißfeldt, op. cit., page 649).

It is quite impossible in some languages to say “a son has been born to Naomi.” This would imply that Naomi herself was the mother. The relationship must be changed to read: “Naomi now has a grandson,” “a grandson has been born for Naomi,” or “Ruth has given birth to a grandson for Naomi.”

The name Obed in Hebrew sounds like the word meaning “servant.” S. Öttli (in Strack-Zöckler’s Kurzgefaßte Kommentar, 1889, ad loc.) and Bertholet (op. cit., ad loc.) explain the name as “ganz für sie da.” This is, however, questionable. It would be more probable to take it in the sense of “worshiper” as a hypocoristic, in which the following name of the divinity has been omitted (so Dhorme, op. cit., ad loc.).

In some languages it is impossible to introduce the final sentence of verse 17 without some alteration. A literal translation, “he was the father of Jesse, who was David’s father,” would be completely confusing, since Obed only later became the father of Jesse, who still later became the father of David. Therefore, one must translate this final sentence as “Obed later became the father of Jesse, and Jesse in turn became the father of David.” One may also translate it as “Obed later had a son who was named Jesse, and Jesse had a son who was named David.”

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 .