The Hebrew text has only “he said,” but it is usually necessary at this point to be quite specific that it is Boaz who speaks to Ruth. Therefore Good News Translation has Boaz said to her. The Syriac version has “Boaz said to her.” Some Septuagint manuscripts read “he said to her.” Other Septuagint manuscripts are even more specific: “he said to Ruth.”

The Hebrew word translated here as cloak occurs only in this passage and in Isaiah 3.22. Early translations usually employ a rendering such as “mantle” (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, and Smith-Goodspeed), whereas more recent translations tend to prefer “cloak” (New American Bible, New English Bible, and Good News Translation). It is clear from the weight that she was to carry in this garment that it could not have been a thin veil. Probably it was a loose, sleeveless outer garment of relatively heavy cloth See Gesenius-Buhl, s.v. mitpachat: “ein großes Umschlagetuch der Frauen.” Compare also Dalman, op. cit., V, page 332. and therefore appropriate to use in carrying a heavy load of barley.

Almost fifty pounds of barley translates a Hebrew expression which is simply “six (measures) of barley.” There is no specific indication in the Hebrew text as to what measure is involved, but the ellipsis of words for measure is quite frequent in Hebrew. See Joüon, par. 142; Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, par. 85. It is possible to say “six measures of barley” (Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, and New English Bible), but this is not very useful in determining the amount involved. Some scholars Especially Joüon and Brockelmann. believe that this is a reference to the ephah, but six ephah would amount to approximately 240 liters (well over 500 pounds), an impossible load for Ruth to carry back to the city. It is possible that the measurement was a seʾah (one-third of an ephah) in which case the total capacity would be approximately 80 liters (about 200 pounds). Since some have felt that even this was too heavy a weight for Ruth to carry, this hypothesis has not found large support. That is the interpretation of the Targum, which is followed by Hertzberg. According to some scholars, a sturdy female peasant could carry that much. However, even for the Targum translator the weight must have been exceptional, for he states that God gave Ruth the strength to carry this burden because she would be the ancestress of the Messiah! Others have concluded that the measure was an ʿomer, which would be equal to one-tenth of an ephah, or approximately 24 liters (somewhat over 50 pounds). This is the interpretation accepted by a majority of modern scholars. So Gerleman, Haller, and the Century Bible, op. cit., ad loc. This opinion is also shared by A. Vincent (op. cit., ad loc.) and very probably by Th. J. Meek (in Smith-Goodspeed), where “six homers” must be a transcription error for “six omers,” the chomer being equal to 10 ephah! It does seem important to indicate that this was an impressive amount of barley—not merely from the fact that Boaz had to help her lift it, but because it was evidently designed to impress both Ruth and Naomi with Boaz’s generosity and his determination to help them in every way that he could.

The majority of Hebrew manuscripts actually have “he (that is, Boaz) went back to town,” but the feminine form also occurs in some Hebrew manuscripts, and the reading “she went back to town” is preferred by a majority of modern scholars and translators. From the viewpoint of textual scholars, “Boaz went back to town” is preferred, but the other reading is not impossible. Of modern translations only Dhorme and NAB make Boaz the subject of the event. Compare NAB: “he poured out six measures of barley, helped her lift the bundle and left for the city.” Of modern commentators only Gerleman seems to be in favor of this more difficult reading. The feminine preformative is found in 17 manuscripts Kennicott and in 37 manuscripts de Rossi and is further supported by the Syriac version and the Vulgate. However, Barthélemy favors the more difficult reading with a “C” evaluation, page 133.

According to verse 3, Ruth went down to the threshing floor. Her return to town implies the opposite movement, “Ruth went up to town.” For languages in which careful distinctions in geographical movement are specified, it is important to reflect this detail.

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 .