The statement of all the people present is essentially a kind of blessing, and it typically has a poetic structure. Verse 11 consists of three lines with a meter 3 + 2, 2 + 3, 3 + 3. A literal translation corresponding to the line divisions would be: //The LORD make this woman / who is coming into your house // like Rachel and Leah / who built up the house of Israel. // Prosper in Ephrathah / be renowned in Bethlehem.//
Verse 12 also has a poetic structure consisting of two lines with the meter 2 + 2 + 3, 3 + 2 + 2. A literal rendering by line and phrase would be: // May your house be / like the house of Perez / whom Tamar bore to Judah, // thanks to the children that will give / you the LORD / by this young woman. // It would be excellent if a translation could reflect this type of poetic structure, but that is usually quite difficult. The passage is too short to establish a well-recognized structure, and the content does not lend itself to poetic formulation, since it does not have the normal wealth of figurative expression. Furthermore, it is in the form of a prayer or request and is thus more difficult to render into poetic form.
As in so many instances, an expression beginning with May the LORD make your wife … must be introduced in a manner that will show that this is direct discourse addressed to the LORD; for example, “We pray the LORD will make this woman….”
Though some make a distinction between the response of the people in being witnesses and the blessing of the elders, and thus follow early translation evidence which has sometimes been defended as the right reading, This is the reading found in the Septuagint, defended by Joüon, op. cit., ad loc., and followed by BJ. the Hebrew text itself reads “all the people who were at the gate and the elders said,” followed by the statement concerning witnessing the event as well as the blessing. Such a division is regarded by others as being artificial. So rightly Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc. But a literal rendering of the Hebrew text is likewise awkward, since the clause “who were at the gate” is hardly necessary in this context. The fact that other people in addition to the elders were sitting in the meeting place at the town gate was already introduced in verse 4.
Since the question concerning the witnessing of this event has already been posed indirectly in verse 10, it may be more satisfactory to begin verse 11 with The leaders and the others said, “Yes….” If verse 10 ends with a question, “Do you witness this today?” one can have the answer, “We do so” (New American Bible).
Who bore many children to Jacob is in Hebrew literally “who built up the house of Israel.” The expression “build a house” is a metaphor to describe perpetuating or establishing a family line, See Baumgartner, s.v. banah, and A. R. Hulst, ibidem (in THAT). but in most languages it is quite impossible to equate a house with a lineage, and therefore some type of adaptation such as Good News Translation employs is necessary. Or it may be necessary to say “who gave birth to many children, who in turn became the people of Israel.” In other languages it may be possible to say “who were the ancestresses of the Israelites,” “who were the ancient mothers of the Israelites,” or “who were the mothers of olden times for the Israelites.”
The transcription of the proper names Rachel and Leah should follow the general principles mentioned in the comments on 1.2. The mention of Rachel is particularly appropriate in this context, since the tradition concerning Rachel was associated with Bethlehem (Gen 35.19-20).
The term rich in the expression May you become rich in the clan of Ephrath involves three essential components of meaning: might, moral value, and wealth. Some translators and commentators emphasize the first component; So BJ: “Deviens puissant en Ephrata,” Gerleman, Haller, Hertzberg. others, the second; So already Vulgate: exemplum virtutis, Gesenius-Buhl and Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. chayil, NEB. but the majority of translators employ terms which focus upon the third component, namely, wealth. So in one form or another RSV, NAB, Smith-Goodspeed, Dhorme. See also Baumgartner, s.v. chayil: “zu Reichtum kommen.” In general, it is best to follow this interpretation of the term, since it is this aspect of the meaning which appears to be in focus in the context. Some scholars would argue that the particular aspect of wealth valid for this context is “children,” So Luther, who translates: “wachse sehr.” Haller appears to be in favor of this translation, and Baumgartner (ibidem: Kindersegen) seems to leave this possibility of translation open. but this is an aspect of meaning which, while it may be derived from the text, probably should not be made explicit in a translation.
Famous in Bethlehem is an expression which is parallel to rich in the clan of Ephrath. In Hebrew it is literally “proclaim (your own) name in Bethlehem.” This is equivalent to “become famous.” So rightly Brown-Driver-Briggs, s.v. garaʾ. There is no need to change the Hebrew text into weniqraʾ shimka (Kittel) or into qeneh shem (Century Bible). Septuagint: kai estai onoma seems to be a good idiomatic translation as well as Vulgate: et habeat celebre nomen in Bethleem. Some Greek manuscripts, however, give a literal translation: kalesai (imp.). The Syriac translator did not understand the meaning at all: “and call its name (scil. the name of E.) Bethlehem.” Some receptor languages have idioms which are relatively close to the Hebrew; for example, “may you have a good name in Bethlehem,” “may all people in Bethlehem know your name,” or “may your name be spoken by all in Bethlehem.” This type of blessing is still current in the Middle East. See H. Granquist, Marriage Conditions in a Palestinian Village II, Helsinki, 1935, pages 120, 131 ff.
The wish expressed in verse 12 may likewise require some type of introductory statement, such as “we pray that,” “we wish that,” or “we ask that.”
The Good News Translation rendering of verse 12 reverses the sentence order of the Hebrew text by starting out with the basis for the comparison, which in the Hebrew text comes at the end (so also in Smith-Goodspeed, New American Bible, Bible de Jérusalem, and Dhorme). The Good News Translation order is more natural in many languages, but it may be somewhat complex because of the inclusion of dependent clauses. Therefore one may wish to employ a somewhat different order and statement of relations; for example, “May the LORD give you children by this woman; then your family will be like the family of Perez. He was the son of Judah and Tamar.”
It is very difficult in some languages to speak of the LORD giving something by means of someone else. This makes the LORD the primary agent and this young woman becomes the secondary agent. For many languages the only way to express this relation is to say “that the LORD will cause this young woman to give to you” or “that this young woman will give to you; the LORD will cause it.”
An additional complication in verse 12 is that there is a causative expression in the relation of the children to the family, expressed in some languages as “may the children … make your family to be like the family of Perez.” In some languages the “likeness” must be expressed in terms of some particular quality; that is to say, it must be like the family of Perez in being large or in being distinguished. Both could be the case, but in view of the special emphasis upon the lineage of David, it would seem that the focus is upon the importance of the family; for example, “may the children … make your family to be important like the family of Perez.”
The mention of Perez, son of Judah and Tamar, involves a reference to the levirate union between Judah and Tamar. In that case no marriage was involved, for Tamar’s connection with Judah was only legitimate for the purpose of raising children. If the union had been perpetuated, it would have been illegitimate. Perez was the ancestor of the clan of Ephrath, to which Boaz himself belonged. It may therefore be important to introduce a footnote at this point to indicate his relation to the family of Perez. This is brought out in the genealogy (verses 18-22), but it may not be evident to the reader.
The blessing of verse 12 speaks consistently about the family of Boaz and, to this extent does not mention the fact that a child born from the marriage of Boaz to Ruth would be technically considered to be the child of Ruth’s deceased husband, Mahlon. There is a problem at this point, and again in the genealogy, where Ruth’s child is likewise presented as the child of Boaz. Though highly hypothetical, Rowley’s solution is very ingenious (op. cit., pages 97-99). He thinks it probable that Boaz’s wife was dead and he himself childless. But then Ruth’s first child would be the child of Mahlon by legal fiction, and also the child of Boaz by actual paternity. In the case of legal marriage with Ruth, the same child would be Boaz’s as well as Mahlon’s heir. This solution has the advantage of accommodating all the facts and makes any surgical treatment of the text unnecessary. However, since Boaz and the deceased husband belonged to the same clan, the failure to mention Mahlon is not too important. Furthermore, the whole emphasis of this story is upon the character of Boaz and his faithfulness to the tradition of Israel.
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 .