The Hebrew text of verse 3 reads “Elimelech the husband of Naomi died, and she was left with her two sons.” The expression “the husband of Naomi” is so repetitious of the information already given in verse 2 as to appear almost misleading. Therefore in some translations (as here) the phrase is omitted, and in place of the pronoun “she” the name Naomi is used. One may actually transfer the expression “the husband of Naomi” to the second part of verse 3 and read “and Naomi, his wife, was left with her two sons.”
The Hebrew expression translated Naomi was left may be rendered in certain contexts as “she was left behind” or “she was left alive,” Ruth 1.3 and 5 are the only instances in the Old Testament where the verb shaʾar is used with reference to a widow. but in many languages it is extremely difficult to translate the Hebrew verb literally. (Compare French elle lui survécut. So BJ, and Edouard Dhorme in La Bible, l’Ancien Testament, Tome 2, Paris, 1959.) The translator must select a natural equivalent in the receptor language to designate a woman who is left as a widow with two sons; for example, “Naomi, his wife, was left a widow with her two sons,” “Naomi remained alone with her two sons,” or “Naomi no longer had a husband, only her two sons.”
The Hebrew text does not specify at this point which son married Orpah and which son married Ruth. However, it seems that the Hebrew writer may have used the Hebrew device of reversing the order of names to indicate which pairs were married. E. F. Campbell shows that the cross-wise arrangement of the pairs of names was a deliberate device, Ruth (Anchor Bible, New York, Doubleday, 1975), page 151. And in 4.10 we find out that Mahlon married Ruth, but at this point the narrative does not state so specifically. If the receptor language must specify the married couples, for example, by means of the ordering of the names, then it should be made clear that Mahlon married Ruth and Chilion married Orpah. However, since the Hebrew makes no other specific attempt to clarify this, no further attempt should normally be made in the receptor language.
The Hebrew expression here translated married occurs only in Old Testament literature of a later period. nasaʾ ʾishah, instead of the usual laqach ʾishah, occurs in Ezra 10.44; 2 Chronicles 11.21; 13.21; and with ellipsis of ʾishah in Ezra 9.2, 12; Nehemiah 13.25. It is true that the same expression does occur in Judges 21.23, but it is in a context which concerns the abduction of women, literally in the sense of “to take wives.” As such, the expression carries an important component of sex, not only in Hebrew but also in many receptor languages.
In Hebrew the proper name Orpah sounds like “rebellious,” and Ruth sounds like “refreshing.” Etymologists have speculated considerably concerning possible implications of the use of these names, but there is no certainty as to the historical background or the meaning. Orpah has usually been considered as a derivative of the root ʿrph, of which the noun ʿoreph (“neck”) occurs several times in Hebrew as a figure of apostasy (Jer 2.27; 32.33); but a derivation from a root ʿphr (with metathesis), resulting in a meaning “mountain-goat,” has seriously been proposed. As to Ruth, much has been deduced from the Syriac spelling found in the Peshitta reʾut, but elision of an ʿayin cannot easily be explained. A connection with a root rawah (“saturate, refresh”), as proposed by A. Bertholet (in Marti’s Kurzer Handkommentar zum AT, 1898, ad loc.), is very doubtful, as well as a connection with Chaldaic werad (“rose”). The suggestion has even been made that the reversed reading of the name of Ruth, tur, meaning “turtledove,” may be of significance! (Hertzberg, ad loc.) However, J. J. Stamm favors “refresh” in “Hebräische Frauennamen” (k Hebräische Wortforschung, pages 325-326). The usual explanation of the name Orpah already dates back to early rabbinic times, as shown by D. Hartmann, Das Buch Ruth in der Midraschliteratur, Zürich, 1901. However, the etymologizing interpretation of a name is a common literary feature which tells us nothing about the correctness of the etymology. On the contrary, it is only a literary feature and/or an interpretative device of the expositors of a certain tradition. See James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, Oxford, 1961, Chapter 6: “Etymologies and related arguments.”
About ten years later is a reference to the time that Mahlon and Chilion lived in Moab—in other words, the time that the family had been there. The ten years should not be counted from the time of Elimelech’s death.
The Hebrew literally reads as follows: “the woman was bereft of her two sons and her husband.” Chronologically Elimelech died first, and Mahlon and Chilion afterward. It may be important, therefore, to reverse the order, as some ancient versions have done, So the majority of Septuagint manuscripts and the Peshitta. so that the phrase reads Naomi was left all alone, without husband or sons. In addition there may be a cultural reason in some languages to mention the husband before the sons.
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 .