complete verse (Ruth 2:2 - 2:5)

Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 2:2-2:5:

  • Noongar: “Ruth of Moab said to Naomi, ‘Let me go to the wheat-field and gather seed. I can go behind people who are kind to me.’ Naomi said to her, ‘Go, my daughter.’ So Ruth went to the wheat-fields and gathered wheat behind the wheat workers. Now, Boaz owned this wheat-field. He was Elimelech’s relative. Just then, Boaz arrived from Bethlehem. He said to the wheat workers, ‘God stays with you!’. They replied, ‘God bless you!’ Then Boaz asked the boss of the wheat workers, ‘This woman, who are her people?’” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
  • Eastern Bru: “Ruth, the Moabite, said to Naomi: ‘Let me go glean in the fields. If the owner of the field is pleased with me, then I will glean in that field..’ And Naomi answered: ‘All right, child. Go, go.’ So Ruth went to glean in the fields following those who were harvesting. She did not know she had come to the field of Boaz. Boaz was from the clan of Elimelech. So Boaz came from Bethlehem, and he said to his harvesters: ‘God be with you.’ They answered: ‘Yes. And God give to you blessings also.’ Then Boaz asked the person who oversaw the people who harvested for him: ‘That young woman is whose child?’ (Source: Bru Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: (verses 4-5) “Now, Boaz arrived from Betlehem and he greeted the harvesters, ‘May the LORD help you(pl)!’ The harvesters replied, ‘May the LORD bless you(sg)!’ Then Boaz asked the servant whom he entrusted to supervise the harvesters, ‘Who is that young lady/woman?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “One day Ruth said to Naomi, ‘Let me go to the fields and pick up the grain left behind by the workers.’ Naomi replied, ‘Go ahead, my daughter.’ So Ruth went to the fields and began to pick up some of the left-over grain. And it happened that she was working in a field that belonged to Boaz, the man from the clan of her dead father-in-law, Elimelech! Just then, Boaz arrived from Bethlehem. He greeted the men who were harvesting the grain, saying, ‘I want Yahweh to bless you!’ They replied, ‘We want Yahweh to bless you, too!’ Then Boaz saw Ruth, and asked the foreman/man in charge of the other workmen, ‘Whose daughter is that young woman?’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:3: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The Chewa have a similar custom to the one mentioned here (cf. Lev. 19:9-10), that is, the poor of the community are allowed to go into the field of a wealthy farmer after the harvest to gather what has been left behind (i.e., to “glean”). People of lesser means, however, make sure they get all of the grain (usually maize) out of the field the first time through.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 172.

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 .