Translation commentary on Ruth 2:18: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

It would have been extremely impolite for Ruth, had she been an African, to take back home with her the food which was left over from the meal which she had eaten at Boaz’ farm. That would certainly give the impression that she had a greedy nature. The custom is rather that she leave a little food on her plate to show that she had been satisfied by her host (even if she was really still hungry). This is, in fact, what was suggested by v. 14, “and she had some [food] left over.”—only to be apparently contradicted now in v. 18. Further aspersions on Ruth’s character result from a literal reproduction of the final clause of this verse: “(Ruth) gave (Naomi) what food she had left over after being satisfied” (cp. old Chichewa Bible: mkute ‘food remaining from the night before’). A woman would be considered most selfish if it were discovered that she had filled herself with food first and then had given the left-overs to her mother-in-law. In a traditional African society, greed, or gluttony, is one of the most abhorrent of characteristics, as attested to by many proverbs and folktales.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 176.

complete verse (Ruth 2:18 - 2:20)

Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 2:18-20:

  • Noongar: “Ruth took the wheat to her house, and Naomi saw what she had gathered. Then Ruth gave her mother-in- law the bread she had not eaten herself. Her mother-in-law asked her, ‘Where did you gather wheat? Where did you work today? May God bless the man who saw you.’ So Ruth told her mother-in-law everything about the man and his wheatfield. Ruth said, ‘This man is called Boaz.’ Naomi said to her daughter, ‘May God bless this man. He has not stopped being merciful to people living and dead.’ Naomi then told Ruth, ‘This man is our relative, our right-way man.’” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
  • Eastern Bru: “Then he brought the grain back to the town. She brought to her mother-in-law the grain she had gleaned. And Ruth brought out the leftover food that she had kept back and gave that to her mother-in-law.Her mother-in-law asked her: ‘Today where did you glean this? Whose field did you glean in? I ask God to give blessing to the one who helped you.’ After that Ruth told her mother-in-law: ‘That man who allowed me to glean in his field today was named Boaz.’Then Naommi said to her daughter-in-law: ‘May God give him blessings. Surely God has not given up doing good to those still living and to those still living and to those who have died.” And Naomi said: ‘Surely this person is from our clan also very near to us.’” (Source: Bru Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “She brought these/it back-home to town and showed-(it) to her mother-in-law Noemi. Then she took-out her leftover food and gave (it) to Noemi. Noemi asked her, ‘Where did you(sg) glean some heads-of-grain earlier? Whose field? Blessed is the man who treated you(sg) well.’ Ruth told Noemi that she gleaned there in the field of a man whose name was Boaz. Noemi said to Ruth, ‘May the LORD bless Boaz. He continued to show his kindness to the people who are still alive and to the dead-ones already.’ And she also said, ‘That Boaz is our(incl) close relative; he is one (of those) who has (a) responsibility to-take-care of us(incl).’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “She carried it back to town, and showed to her mother-in-law how much she had gathered. Ruth also showed to her the grain that was left over after she had eaten enough from what Boaz had given her at lunchtime. Her mother-in-law asked her, ‘Where did you gather grain today? In whose field did you work? God will surely bless the man who was kind to you.’ Then Ruth told her about the man in whose field she had been working. She said, ‘The name of the man who owns the field where I worked today is Boaz.’ Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, ‘I hope/desire that Yahweh will bless him! He has not stopped acting kindly toward us, who are still living, and to our husbands who have died.’ Then she added, ‘That man is a close relative of Elimelech; he is one of those who has a responsibility to help those who are his relatives.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:18

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 .