The Hebrew text has “Ruth her daughter-in-law,” but it is not necessary to reproduce “daughter-in-law” in this context, since the relationship is quite clear (cf. New English Bible and New American Bible).

In some languages a general verb for said is appropriate in introducing Naomi’s comment in this verse. In other languages the link between verse 22 and verse 21 needs to be made more evident, and therefore one may use a verb such as “rejoined” (New American Bible), “responded,” or “replied in turn.”

For the translation of daughter, see the comments on verses 8 and 9. The connotation of this term is one of affection and kinship. A modern English equivalent may be “my dear” (see New American Bible).

The Hebrew text of verse 22 presents the two statements of Naomi in the same order as that shown in Good News Translation. The comparative it will be better for you to work with the women in Boaz’ field precedes the statement concerning Ruth’s possibly being molested if she goes to another man’s field. It may seem more natural in many languages, however, to state the reason first, You might be molested…, and then the result or conclusion, namely, that Ruth had better stay with the servants of Boaz.

The clause it will be better for you to work with the women in Boaz’ field is in Hebrew a comparative construction, but the second part of the comparison is left out, namely, “better than….” See Joüon, par 141. This makes the Hebrew clause correspond more or less to the English construction “you had better accompany his girls” (Moffatt). However, in some receptor languages it may not be possible to leave out the second member of a comparison. One may have to say, for example, “it is better for you to stay with his servants than to go with the servants of some other man.” Perhaps a more natural expression for this comparison would employ a statement containing an expression of necessity; for example, “you should only accompany his women servants” or “you must stay with his servants.”

You might be molested translates a Hebrew verb which often means merely “to meet.” In this context, however, it means “to meet with hostility.” There seems no reason for following New English Bible “let no one catch you,” since the meaning seems clearly to be “molest” or “harm.” One may even have the active verbal construction: “so that no one may attack you in the fields” or “so that the reapers in the field of someone else may not attack you there.”

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 .

Verse 23 serves as a summary of the contents of chapter 2, but it seems to provide no clue as to further developments in the story. Yet there is a suggestion for the transition which occurs in the following verse, the first verse of chapter 3. Chapter 2 ends with Ruth living with her mother-in-law, but the first verse of chapter 3 contains Naomi’s declaration that she should seek a home for Ruth, since a permanent arrangement for Ruth would obviously be more satisfactory than continuing indefinitely with her mother-in-law. Thus, though the text of verse 23 does not seem to provide a clue as to the rest of the story, in fact it actually does. It is the issue of a permanent home and relationship which is regarded as so essential for Ruth.

It is important to recognize that verse 23 is a type of summary, and therefore a particle such as So is quite appropriate. This may be rendered as “And therefore,” “And as a result,” or “In keeping with this.”

It would be wrong to translate the first clause of verse 23, Ruth worked with them, in such a way as to give the impression that Ruth was hired by Boaz as one of his servants. Rather, she continued to gather or to glean on the same basis as Boaz had specified to his servants in verse 16. It is rather misleading to follow the Revised Standard Version translation, “she kept close to the maidens of Boaz,” since this could imply quite a different dimension of relationship.

Until all the barley and wheat had been harvested can be restructured as “till the harvester had cut and brought in all the barley and wheat,” which is somewhat more specific.

In some of the ancient versions, the final clause, And she continued to live with her mother-in-law, is placed at the beginning of chapter 3, So in the Vulgate and in the Syriac version. but there seems to be no special need to follow this division. NAB is one of the rare exceptions in which this versional division is followed. It may be useful, however, to introduce the last clause with an expression such as “After that” (that is to say, “After the work in the field”). One is not advised to follow the alternative Hebrew reading, “and she returned to her mother-in-law.” This reading has very little textual support and seems clearly secondary, since it appears to be only a smoother transition from the first statement to the second. The alternative Hebrew reading (with different vocalization of the same consonants of the verbal form and change of ʾet- into ʾel-) found in two manuscripts of Kennicott is followed by the Vulgate. Among the older translations, Luther is in favor of this reading, though he places it at the end of the second chapter. Among the newer translations, NAB apparently tries to combine both readings in stating “when she was back with her mother-in-law” at the beginning of chapter 3 (see note 83).

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 .