For the sentence The LORD bless you, see the comments on 2.20. At this point the Good News Translation text changes a passive expression in Hebrew (literally “may you be blessed by the LORD”) into an active form. A number of languages do not have this type of so-called optative expression, and hence some type of introductory expression of speaking or desiring may be required; for example, “I ask the LORD to bless you,” “I pray that the LORD will bless you,” or even “I am sure that the LORD will bless you.” A translation such as in New English Bible, “the LORD has blessed you,” does not seem justified in view of the evident optative meaning of the Hebrew verbal form. See Joüon, par. 132-133.

In the Hebrew Boaz here addresses Ruth as “my daughter,” but in some languages such words at this point would be inappropriate, since they would only confirm the suspicions that the reference to “close relative” did indeed imply an incestuous relation. The closest equivalent in some languages is “dear young lady” or “dear woman.” It would seem particularly inappropriate in many languages for Boaz to address a woman who had already been married by a term such as “daughter.” Therefore Good News Translation omits this address.

The second sentence of verse 10 in Hebrew is literally “you have made your last loyalty greater than the first.” The references here would be perfectly clear to the ancient Hebrew reader, but they are certainly obscure to the average present-day reader of this story. The theme of the “first loyalty” was already spoken of by Boaz in 2.11, a reference to Ruth’s concern for her mother-in-law and loyalty to her. The “last loyalty” is a reference to Ruth’s preference for Boaz as a husband rather than for a young man, in order that Boaz, as one of the “redeemers” (see 2.20), could give an official offspring to the first husband, who was deceased, and so to the family of the mother-in-law. This loyalty is stated more precisely by Boaz as You might have gone looking for a young man. Since the reference to the “last loyalty” and the “first loyalty” are quite obscure to the average reader, it is usually preferable to follow the practice of Good News Translation in making the relation explicit: You are showing even greater family loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law.

In the phrase translated gone looking for a young man, the Hebrew text employs an extremely rare use of the verb “go after” or “follow.” In fact, the only similar context in the Old Testament is Proverbs 7.22, in which “the beloved one” is the goal of such an action. One might assume that a verb such as “run after” or gone looking for would be almost universally applicable to courtship and marriage, but this is not necessarily true. Some languages may require quite a different type of expression; for example, “to cause a young man to be interested in you,” “to cause a young man to desire you,” or “to cause a young man to see you as beautiful.” On the other hand, some languages simply use “to want to marry a young man” or “to want to have a young man as a husband.”

The phrase rich or poor reverses the Hebrew word order, “poor or rich.” In many languages this reversed order seems far more natural. Even some early translators felt the necessity for a different order. The reversed order is already found in the Syriac version. Rich or poor is a very elliptical expression, and it must be filled out in a number of languages; for example, “You have not run after a young man, if he were rich or if he were poor,” “You have not run after either a rich young man or a poor young man,” or “You have not run after young men, one who is rich or one who is poor.”

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 .

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 .

During the night renders a Hebrew expression “and it was in the middle of the night,” but this does not indicate precisely “at midnight” (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, and Smith-Goodspeed). An expression such as “about midnight” (New English Bible) is a more correct equivalent. In a number of languages there are several different terms for periods of the night, each period having a specific name or designation. A translator should select a term for a time near midnight, without attempting to be too precise in the designation.

He woke up suddenly renders a Hebrew expression “the man started up.” “The man” is Boaz, and one should employ either a definite pronoun “he” or the name “Boaz.” The verb “started up” implies “to start up out of sleep”; therefore he woke up suddenly is a close equivalent. The Hebrew verb is intransitive (at least in its active voice), and accordingly it is difficult to justify taking “the man” as the object with some kind of indefinite and implied subject, as in the case of New English Bible: “something disturbed the man as he slept.”

Turned over is the rendering employed in most modern English versions, with the exception of Moffatt, who adapts the meaning of the verb to the context and thus renders “and bent forward.” The meaning of this verb is not at all clear. There are only two other occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament: Judges 16.29, where it is used of Samson and his behavior in the temple of Dagon, rendered there in Revised Standard Version as “took hold” (Samson grasped the two middle columns); and in Job 6.18, where it is generally translated “turns aside” (Revised Standard Version). In each instance the rendering of the verb depends largely on the context and on the meaning of related terms in cognate languages. A good example of this is N. H. Tur-Sinai (k The Book of Job, Jerusalem, 1957, ad loc.), who after giving all the meanings in cognate languages, finally bases his translation on a parallel text elsewhere in Job. The interpretation “to turn over” is largely based on Arabic, in which a related verb means “to twist (oneself).” The transitive meaning of Arabic lafata is “to wring” (e.g., a man’s neck). ʾalfatu is a man with a powerful grasp, who hoists or wrings one who grapples with him. See E. W. Lane, Al-Qamusu, an Arabic-English Lexicon, 1863-1893, s.v. Parallel meanings are found in other cognate languages as Aramaic and Syriac. On the other hand, in Accadian lapâtu usually means “to touch.” This meaning, however, would imply that Ruth was lying by the side of Boaz rather than at his feet. In fact, one of the ancient versions seems to have interpreted the situation in this way by commenting that Boaz nevertheless controlled his desires and did not approach Ruth. So the Targum. Other versions seemed to have missed the meaning of the Hebrew verb and take it as a synonym of the preceding verb, “to start up” or “to tremble.” See Septuagint kai etarachthē “and he was disturbed”; Vulgate et conturbatus est; Syriac watwah “he was struck.” In summary, one might say that the rendering given by Moffatt (“and bent forward”) seems to be the best, since it appears to fit most precisely the context.

The phrase was surprised to find translates a vivid Hebrew expression, literally, “see, a woman lay at his feet.” This kind of vivid style can be quite effectively reproduced in a number of languages. The interjection in the Hebrew text marks surprise. On the other hand, it is surely for stylistic reasons that the Targum, Vulgate, and Syriac version changed the interjection into a (neutral) verbal form: “and he saw.” The relation between the surprise and finding a woman lying at his feet must be expressed in a number of languages as cause and effect; for example, “he was very much surprised because he found a woman lying at his feet.” The meaning of to find in this context is, of course, “to discover,” and this is sometimes represented by a verb “to see”; for example, “he was very much surprised because he saw a woman lying there at his feet.”

The qualifying phrase lying at his feet must sometimes be made a separate clause; for example, “he saw a woman; she was lying there at his feet.”

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 .

He was in a good mood renders what is literally in Hebrew “his heart was merry.” In this context happiness is the result of good eating and drinking, a state of well-being, but there is nothing in the Hebrew expression that would suggest any excess. There are a number of ways in which the meaning of the Hebrew idiom may be expressed; for example, “he had a sense of well being” (Smith-Goodspeed), “he felt at peace with the world” (New English Bible), “he had a merry time” (Moffatt), “his heart was sweet,” “his liver was happy,” and “his eyes were bright,” to suggest only a few ways in which happiness may be expressed in various receptor languages.

The location where Boaz lay down is not at all specific in Hebrew. It is therefore quite appropriate to translate by some such general expression as “by,” “near to,” or “at the edge of” (New American Bible). In this context a meaning such as “at the end of” (Smith-Goodspeed) or “at the far end of” would seem to be erroneous.

The Hebrew text only specifies a “pile” or “heap,” but obviously this is a reference to a “heap of grain” (New English Bible and Moffatt), not a “straw stack.” One cannot be certain whether the grain was threshed or not. According to N. Gesenius, Thesaurus philologicus criticus linguae Hebraeae et Chaldæae Veteris Testamenti, Lipsiae, 1835-1853, article ʿarema, and G. B. Winer, Biblisches Realwörterbuch, Leipzig, 1847-1848, article Ernte, the Hebrew word refers to a heap of unthreshed grain; according to J. G. Wetzstein, “Die syrische Dreschtafel,” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 5, 1873, page 279, and Gerleman, page 31, it refers to a heap of threshed grain. Usually one must specify what a pile or heap consists of; therefore one may say the pile of barley or “the heap of grain.”

The Hebrew text says simply “she came secretly,” but it may be better in some languages to indicate the component of “secrecy” in the verb itself; for example, “she slipped over quietly,” “she crept in noiselessly,” or “she stole up to.”

There was some lapse of time between Boaz’s lying down to sleep and Ruth’s lifting up the cover of his feet. In some receptor languages it may be necessary to specify this time lapse by suggesting the intervening implicit state, namely, “when he was asleep.” The necessity for this was felt already by early translators. The Syriac translator made this information explicit in the following way: “And when he was quietly sleeping on the threshing floor….”

For the rendering of lifted the covers and lay down, see the comments on verse 4. At this point some ancient translators sometimes tried to “purify” the text. Septuagint omits wattishkab; Pershitta gives a different interpretation: “she fell at his feet.” The old Greek omits Boaz’s drinking!

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 .

What Good News Translation has rendered as went is in Hebrew more specifically “went down.” See the comments on verse 3.

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 .

The Hebrew text has simply “and she said….” However, in view of the fact that there is a change in the one who is speaking, it is often better to make the subject (Ruth) explicit: “Ruth answered” or “Ruth responded” (see New American Bible, New English Bible, and Good News Translation).

In a number of Hebrew manuscripts and in various versions, the pronoun “me” is added. This variant reading is found in Q, in a number of manuscripts Kennicott de Rossi, and in the Ginsburg text. Moreover, it is also found in many Targum and Syriac manuscripts. Hence the statement of Ruth may be rendered as “I will do everything you have told me” or “… whatever you tell me” (New English Bible).

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 .

Lift the covers renders what is in Hebrew literally “uncover the place of his feet.” The meaning of what Ruth did was essentially to ask for Boaz’s protection. So rightly Gerleman, op. cit., ad loc.: “sich als Bittstellerin in seinen Schutz begeben.” Of course, the idea of a marriage proposal may very well have been implicit in the act, Compare George A. F. Knight, Ruth and Jonah (The Torch Bible Commentaries), 1960, ad loc.: “Ruth’s act in lying at Boaz’s feet is not to be judged an indelicate act from our standard of ethical thinking. Such was the accepted manner in which a woman could propose marriage to a man.” However, it surely was a hazardous act from the standard of Jewish ethical thinking. As we have to do with an isolated instance in the Old Testament, it may be going too far to speak of an “accepted manner.” but there is no clear evidence that this expression is a euphemism for sexual intercourse, as has been suggested by some scholars. For H. G. May (JRAS, 1939, pages 75 ff.) and W. E. Staples (k The Book of Ruth, AJSL 53, 1937, pages 153 ff.), this is an instance of sacred prostitution which took place at Bethlehem’s high place. The six measures of barley which Boaz gave to Ruth are interpreted as the hire of a sacred prostitute. Needless to say that such an interpretation makes the whole story incoherent. On the other hand, the Hebrew terms translated “uncover,” “feet,” and “lie down” are often associated with sexual acts, and therefore the expression lends itself to this type of interpretation. It must be said that most verbs in this verse are frequently used as euphemisms for sexual intercourse in other contexts as: yadaʿ, shakab, boʾ, galah. Though the noun margelot is only found once outside the book of Ruth (in Daniel 10.6, where it is no euphemism), it is easily associated with a noun as raglayim, which is used as a euphemism for the male sex organ in, e.g., Exodus 4.25. Even some ancient translators tried in several ways to weaken or alter the meaning. The Syriac translator did so in omitting the expression “uncovered” and in only stating: “lie down at his feet.” The Targum has an additional phrase in the last part of the verse: “He will tell you through his wisdom what to do.”

Since it is altogether possible that what Ruth did may be misunderstood in a receptor culture, it is appropriate to have some marginal note at this point indicating that what Ruth did was a symbolic way of asking for protection. In fact, in some translations the meaning of the act is incorporated into the text itself, for example, “lift up the cover at his feet to ask for his protection.” This may be done on the basis that the act itself was a recognized symbol for asking for security.

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 .

Wash yourself should be understood in the sense of “to bathe” (New American Bible).

Put on some perfume represents a Hebrew expression normally translated as “to anoint.” An exception to this rule is BJ, which translates correctly: “parfume-toi.” One of the difficulties involved in using a word meaning “to anoint” is that this is a very generalized expression in Hebrew and would not necessarily be understood in this context to mean “anoint with good-smelling oils.” Therefore it seems better to be somewhat more specific than the Hebrew text and to translate “put on some perfume,” since this was certainly the meaning of Naomi’s instructions to Ruth.

The rendering get dressed in your best clothes is a very satisfactory idiomatic equivalent of the Hebrew expression. However, it is true that most Hebrew manuscripts simlotayik is the reading of Q and 7 MSS. have at this point a singular noun, and one may therefore appropriately translate “put on your best cloak.” This may very well refer to a large piece of cloth worn as an outer garment, but this is not the mantle or cloak mentioned in verse 15 which Ruth used to carry home the relatively large quantity of barley.

Rather than merely go where he is threshing, the Hebrew specifies “go down to the threshing floor.” This would imply that the threshing floor was situated at a point lower than the town of Bethlehem, but there is no specific information as to its location. Bethlehem was built on two hills. So for Haller (op. cit., ad loc.) the threshing floor was to be found on the lower hill. On the other hand, Hertzberg (op. cit., ad loc.), exploring local tradition about the “field of Boaz,” thinks that the threshing floors of Bethlehem were to be found on the same spot where in our time the threshing floors of the village Beit Sahur, a village east of Bethlehem, are located. Midrash on Ruth only concludes from the use of the verb that the threshing floors were to be found on low spots. Where languages do employ rather precise indications of movement, such as “going up” or “going down,” one should attempt to follow the Hebrew usage, but the indication of elevation in this context is by no means crucial or particularly significant.

What is rendered in Good News Translation as don’t let him know you are there represents a Hebrew expression which may be translated literally as “do not make yourself known to the man” (Revised Standard Version). The obvious meaning here is “do not let yourself be recognized by him.” See Joüon, par. 132, note 2. The Hebrew expression must be restructured in a number of languages; for example, “do not let your presence be known to the man,” “don’t let him recognize that you are there,” or “don’t let him know who you are.” Even some ancient translators recognized the need for restructuring and translated the Hebrew expression as “do not show yourself to him.” So Syriac version. Gerleman rightly sees that this variant reading does not presuppose a different Vorlage.

In this context drinking refers to the drinking of wine or some other alcoholic beverage. In some languages the process of eating and drinking is represented by a single verb.

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 .