The verb employed in the phrase Boaz went is in the perfect tense in Hebrew, and this would indicate that the action described in this verse is not necessarily consecutive or following what has been mentioned at the end of chapter 3. Naomi’s reply to Ruth, however, would seem to indicate that this is the next action, since she assures Ruth that “Boaz will settle the matter today.” Nevertheless, the action described in verse 1 could have taken place earlier, at the same time, or later than the last events mentioned in chapter 3. For this see Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, par. 41. In some languages some marker of sequence of action is almost always required. A rendering such as “meanwhile” (Smith-Goodspeed) would seem to be too explicit. New English Bible has “now Boaz had gone,” which would seem to place the action prior to what was recorded at the end of chapter 3. In some languages one is almost required to employ some such expression as “and then,” which does not necessarily mark consecutive action but indicates that this is the next event being related in the story.
In languages which consistently mark certain aspects of direction, the verb went can be more specifically indicated as “went up,” since this is the meaning of the Hebrew expression; but it would be wrong to try to force this type of meaning too specifically at this point.
To the meeting place at the town gate is in Hebrew merely “to the gate,” but a literal rendering would have very little meaning for the average reader. In the first place, people do not think in terms of a gate to a city. Furthermore, the mention of merely a “gate” would imply some ordinary gate within the city and not “the city gate.” Therefore it is important to specify what kind of gate is involved (see New English Bible, Moffatt, and Smith-Goodspeed). The addition of the qualification “city” to “gate” has already been done by early translators. So Syriac version. In many languages it is not enough to state “city gate,” since this too would be relatively meaningless. One must specify the relation between the gate and the city; for example, “the gate leading into the city” or “the gate by which people went in and out of the city.” But what is significant in this context is not the gate itself, but the space immediately inside the town gate which was so important to the social life of the city. It was here that judgments were normally held (Deut 21.19; 25.7; etc.). One must, therefore, in many languages add an expression such as “the meeting place,” so as to indicate clearly the relevant components which occur in the word “gate” used in this kind of context.
The expansion of the Hebrew term “the gate” to a phrase such as the meeting place at the town gate might seem to be an unwarranted addition, but this phrase only makes explicit what is fully implicit in the meaningful components of the Hebrew term “gate.” In this context the meaning of “gate” is not the particular structure in the town wall, but the area inside the gate which was used for important consultations.
In many societies there are no gates to a city; and if there are gates, the area immediately inside the gate may be of no importance to the life of the community. In some societies the closest equivalent may be “the chief’s compound,” where the chief speaks to the people and supervises legal proceedings and where the people of the village often gather for social occasions. In other societies, the functional equivalent is the public square or courtyard, often spoken of as “the plaza,” and generally distinct from the market place. Compare also J. de Waard, “Quelques problèmes de traduction dans le livre des Psaumes,” Flambeau 21, 1969, pages 23-30, ad Psalm 9.14; idem, “The translation of some figures of speech from Psalms in Bamiléké and Bamoun,” The Bible Translator 20, 1969, page 144. For the culture of the Bible the gate was so important that one should avoid, if at all possible, making a complete cultural adaptation by using an expression such as “the chief’s compound.” It is far better to employ something like “to the public square at the town gate” or “to the gathering place of the city near the city gate.”
Elimelech’s nearest relative is literally in Hebrew “he who has the right of redemption.” For an analysis of this expression, see the comments on 2.20 and 3.12. One may use in the present context a designation of proximity in the family line; for example, “he stands closest to Elimelech in the family” or “he sits closer to Elimelech in the family than Boaz does.” Or one may use some designation to indicate function; for example, “he is the first one who should help out as a relative,” “he is the one who has the first right to take Ruth as a wife,” or “he is the first one who should help Naomi and Ruth.”
If the levirate marriage arrangement is the basis for Boaz’s marriage to Ruth, This has been denied by S. R. Driver, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 1896, page 285, and by L. M. Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud, 1942, pages 86 ff., who distinguishes levirate marriage and geʾullah marriage, and who identifies the marriage of Ruth with the latter. Cf. also E. Lipinski, “Le mariage de Ruth,” Vetus Testamentum 26 (1976):124-127. there are only two passages in the Old Testament outside of the Book of Ruth which deal specifically with the subject: Genesis 38 and Deuteronomy 25.5-10 (References to both of these passages are included within this chapter; see comments on verses 8 and 12.) The passage in Deuteronomy speaks only about a widow’s relation to her brother-in-law, but in the Genesis passage there is an indication that the levirate relation is not limited to the brother-in-law, and when a brother-in-law does not exist, another relative may serve. It may be that the text in Deuteronomy suggests a restriction of something that had a wider practice in earlier times, and that it is this wider practice which is reflected in the Book of Ruth. See the very thorough discussion in Rowley, op. cit. Compare also R. de Vaux, op. cit., I, page 41.
The man who Boaz had mentioned may need to be somewhat more specific in some languages; for example, “it was to Ruth that Boaz had mentioned this man” or “Boaz had mentioned to Ruth this person.” If the expression the man whom Boaz had mentioned must be made a separate sentence, it would normally occur after the sentence “just then Elimelech’s nearest relative came by.”
The Hebrew expression rendered in Good News Translation as my friend literally means “another, or an unknown person.” See Baumgartner, s.v. peloni. This type of expression is used when an author does not wish to mention or cannot name the specific person or place involved in an account. These words are not specifically included in the statement by Boaz, but come from the author of the book. This means that the name of the person involved was not known to the tradition, or that the author simply did not wish to invent a name. It is possible that the person was well known and that the author intentionally omitted his name in order not to embarrass a well-known person. So Hertzberg, op. cit., ad loc. It is also possible that the author had no interest in preserving the name, as there is no emphasis upon this particular relative. So Rudolph, Haller, Gerleman, Century Bible. In the two other places in the Old Testament where this expression occurs (1 Sam 21.2 [verse 3 in Hebrew]; 2 Kgs 6.8) the name is omitted deliberately. Earlier translators already encountered problems with the translation of this term, The Septuagint uses a Greek vocative kruphie, but this appears to be a literal rendering, quite unnatural in Greek. The Syriac translator reading “And he said to him: Why?” must have misunderstood the Hebrew completely, as he also misunderstood the expression in the two other Old Testament places. Vulgate has a free rendering, vocans eum nomine suo, which has been followed by NAB and NEB: “calling him by name”! and in some instances it may be very difficult indeed to find some natural equivalent. An exception could be made in the case of Arabic, where a common expression as shuʾsmuk (“what is your name?”) or ya Fulani is used. Compare also Brockelmann, Grundriß II, par. 44, for other Semitic parallels. In view of the fact that these words do not actually form a part of Boaz’s speech, it is possible to omit them (cf. Smith-Goodspeed), but in many instances it seems far more natural and polite to have some kind of expression of address such as “sir.” In some cases a rendering such as “my friend” appears to be even more satisfactory.
It is important in introducing the last sentence of verse 1 to employ some kind of particle marking result; for example, “so,” “as a result,” or even “hence.” This marks the sentence as the conclusion of what has immediately preceded.
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 .