Ruth 1:21

1:21 I left here full, ¹  but the Lord has caused me to return empty-handed. ²  Why do you call me ‘Naomi,’ seeing that ³  the Lord has opposed me, ⁴  and the Sovereign One ⁵  has caused me to suffer?” ⁶ 

Ruth 2:17

2:17 So she gathered grain in the field until evening. When she threshed ⁷  what she had gathered, it came to about thirty pounds ⁸  of barley!

Ruth 3:15

3:15 Then he said, “Hold out the shawl ⁹  you are wearing ¹⁰  and grip it tightly.” As she held it tightly, he measured out about sixty pounds ¹¹  of barley into the shawl and put it on her shoulders. Then he ¹²  went into town,

Ruth 1:7

Ruth Returns with Naomi

1:7 Now as she and her two daughters-in-law began to leave the place where she had been living to return to the land of Judah, ¹³ 

Ruth 2:16

2:16 Make sure you pull out ¹⁴  ears of grain for her and drop them so she can gather them up. Don’t tell her not to!” ¹⁵ 

Ruth 3:18

3:18 Then Naomi ¹⁶  said, “Stay put, ¹⁷  my daughter, until you know how the matter turns out. For the man will not rest until he has taken care of the matter today.”

Ruth 2:22

2:22 Naomi then said to her daughter-in-law Ruth, “It is good, my daughter, that you should go out to work with his female servants. ¹⁸  That way you will not be harmed, which could happen in another field.” ¹⁹ 

Ruth 1:13

1:13 surely you would not want to wait until they were old enough to marry! ²⁰  Surely you would not remain unmarried all that time! ²¹  No, ²²  my daughters, you must not return with me. ²³  For my intense suffering ²⁴  is too much for you to bear. ²⁵  For the Lord is afflicting me!” ²⁶ 

Ruth 2:18

Ruth Returns to Naomi

2:18 She carried it back to town, and her mother-in-law saw ²⁷  how much grain ²⁸  she had gathered. Then Ruth ²⁹  gave her the roasted grain she had saved from mealtime. ³⁰ 

Ruth 2:3

2:3 So Ruth ³¹  went and gathered grain in the fields ³²  behind the harvesters. Now she just happened to end up ³³  in the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelech.

Ruth 1:22

1:22 So Naomi returned, accompanied by her Moabite daughter-in-law Ruth, who came back with her from the region of Moab. ³⁴  (Now they ³⁵  arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest.) ³⁶ 

Ruth 2:6

2:6 The servant in charge of the harvesters replied, “She’s the young Moabite woman who came back with Naomi from the region of Moab.

Ruth 4:1

Boaz Settles the Matter

4:1 Now Boaz went up ³⁷  to the village gate and sat there. Then along came the guardian ³⁸  whom Boaz had mentioned to Ruth! ³⁹  Boaz said, “Come ⁴⁰  here and sit down, ‘John Doe’!” ⁴¹  So he came ⁴²  and sat down.

Ruth 3:16

3:16 and she returned to her mother-in-law.

Ruth Returns to Naomi

When Ruth returned to her mother-in-law, Naomi ⁴³  asked, ⁴⁴  “How did things turn out for you, ⁴⁵  my daughter?” Ruth ⁴⁶  told her about all the man had done for her. ⁴⁷ 

Ruth 4:3

4:3 Then Boaz said to the guardian, ⁴⁸  “Naomi, who has returned from the region of Moab, is selling ⁴⁹  the portion of land that belongs to our relative Elimelech.

Ruth 2:2

2:2 One day Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go ⁵⁰  to the fields so I can gather ⁵¹  grain behind whoever permits me to do so.” ⁵²  Naomi ⁵³  replied, “You may go, my daughter.”

[1:21]  ¹ sn I left here full. That is, with a husband and two sons.

[1:21]  ² tn Heb “but empty the Lord has brought me back.” The disjunctive clause structure (vav + adverb + verb + subject) highlights the contrast between her former condition and present situation. Cf. TEV “has brought me back without a thing.”

[1:21]  ³ tn The disjunctive clause structure (vav [ו] + subject + verb) here introduces either an attendant circumstance (“when the Lord has opposed me”) or an explanation (“seeing that the Lord has opposed me”).

[1:21]  ⁴ tc The LXX reads “humbled me” here, apparently understanding the verb as a Piel (עָנָה, ’anah) from a homonymic root meaning “afflict.” However, עָנָה (“afflict”) never introduces its object with בְּ (bet); when the preposition בְּ is used with this verb, it is always adverbial (“in, with, through”). To defend the LXX reading one would have to eliminate the preposition.

[1:21]  ⁵ sn The divine name translated Sovereign One is שַׁדַּי (shadday, “Shaddai”). See further the note on this term in Ruth 1:20.

[1:21]  ⁶ tn Or “brought disaster upon me”; NIV “brought misfortune (calamity NRSV) upon me”; NLT “has sent such tragedy.”

[2:17]  ⁷ tn Heb “she beat out” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV, NLT). Ruth probably used a stick to separate the kernels of grain from the husks. See O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 63.

[2:17]  ⁸ tn Heb “there was an ephah.” An ephah was a dry measure, equivalent to one-tenth of a homer (see HALOT 43 s.v. אֵיפָה). An ephah was equivalent to a “bath,” a liquid measure. Jars labeled “bath” found at archaeological sites in Israel could contain approximately 5.8 gallons, or one-half to two-thirds of a bushel. Thus an ephah of barley would have weighed about 29 to 30 pounds (just over 13 kg). See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 179.

[3:15]  ¹³ tn Or “cloak” (so NAB, NRSV, NLT); CEV “cape.” The Hebrew noun occurs only here and in Isa 3:22.

[3:15]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “which [is] upon you”; NIV, NRSV “you are wearing.”

[3:15]  ¹⁵ tn Heb “and she gripped it tightly and he measured out six of barley and placed upon her.” The unit of measure is not indicated in the Hebrew text, although it would probably have been clear to the original hearers of the account. Six ephahs, the equivalent of 180-300 pounds, is clearly too heavy, especially if carried in a garment. Six omers (an omer being a tenth of an ephah) seems too little, since this would have amounted to six-tenths of an ephah, less than Ruth had gleaned in a single day (cf. 2:17). Thus a seah (one third of an ephah) may be in view here; six seahs would amount to two ephahs, about 60 pounds (27 kg). See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 222, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 178.

[3:15]  ¹⁶ tc The MT preserves the 3rd person masculine singular form וַיָּבֹא (vayyavo’, “then he went”; cf. ASV, NAB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, NLT), while many medieval mss (supported by the Syriac and Vulgate) have the 3rd person feminine singular form וַתָּבֹא (vattavo’, “then she went”; cf. KJV, NASB, TEV).

[1:7]  ¹⁹ tn Heb “and she went out from the place she had been, and her two daughters-in-law with her, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah.”

[2:16]  ²⁵ tn The infinitive absolute precedes the finite verb for emphasis. Here שָׁלַל (shalal, “pull out”) is a homonym of the more common Hebrew verb meaning “to plunder.” An Arabic cognate is used of drawing a sword out of a scabbard (see BDB 1021 s.v.).

[2:16]  ²⁶ tn Heb “do not rebuke her” (so NASB, NRSV); CEV “don’t speak harshly to her”; NLT “don’t give her a hard time.”

[3:18]  ³¹ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Naomi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:18]  ³² tn Heb “sit”; KJV “Sit still”; NAB “Wait here”; NLT “Just be patient.”

[2:22]  ³⁷ tn Naomi uses the feminine form of the word “servant” (as Boaz did earlier, see v. 8), in contrast to Ruth’s use of the masculine form in the preceding verse. Since she is concerned for Ruth’s safety, she may be subtly reminding Ruth to stay with the female workers and not get too close to the men.

[2:22]  ³⁸ tn Heb “and they will not harm you in another field”; NRSV “otherwise you might be bothered in another field.”

[1:13]  ⁴³ tn Heb “For them would you wait until they were grown?” Some understand הֲלָהֵן (halahen) as an interrogative he (ה) with an Aramaic particle meaning “therefore” (see GKC 301 §103.b.2 [n. 4]; cf. ASV, NASB), while others understand the form to consist of an interrogative he, the preposition ל (lamed, “for”), and an apparent third person feminine plural pronominal suffix (CEV, NLT “for them”). The feminine suffix is problematic, for its antecedent is the hypothetical “sons” mentioned at the end of v. 12. For this reason some emend the form to הלתם (“for them,” a third person masculine plural suffix). R. L. Hubbard raises the possibility that the nunated suffix is an archaic Moabite masculine dual form (Ruth [NICOT], 111, n. 31). In any case, Naomi’s rhetorical question expects a negative answer.

[1:13]  ⁴⁴ tn Heb “For them would you hold yourselves back so as not to be for a man?” Again Naomi’s rhetorical question expects a negative answer. The verb עָגַן (’agan, “hold back”; cf. KJV, ASV “stay”; NRSV “refrain”) occurs only here in the OT. For discussion of its etymology and meaning, see HALOT 785-86 s.v. עגן, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 79-80.

[1:13]  ⁴⁵ tn The negative is used here in an elliptical manner for emphasis (see HALOT 48 s.v. I אַל; GKC 479-80 §152.g).

[1:13]  ⁴⁶ tn Heb “No, my daughters.” Naomi is not answering the rhetorical questions she has just asked. In light of the explanatory clause that follows, it seems more likely that she is urging them to give up the idea of returning with her. In other words, the words “no, my daughters” complement the earlier exhortation to “go back.” To clarify this, the words “you must not return with me” are added in the translation.

[1:13]  ⁴⁷ tn Heb “bitterness to me.” The term מָרַר (marar) can refer to emotional bitterness: “to feel bitter” (1 Sam 30:6; 2 Kgs 4:27; Lam 1:4) or a grievous situation: “to be in bitter circumstances” (Jer 4:18) (BDB 600 s.v.; HALOT 638 s.v. I מרר). So the expression מַר־לִי (mar-li) can refer to emotional bitterness (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS, CEV, NLT) or a grievous situation (cf. NRSV, NAB, NCV, CEV margin). Although Naomi and her daughters-in-law had reason for emotional grief, the issue at hand was Naomi’s lamentable situation, which she did not want them to experience: being a poor widow in a foreign land.

[1:13]  ⁴⁸ tn Heb “for there is bitterness to me exceedingly from you.” The clause כִּי־מַר־לִי מְאֹד מִכֶּם (ki-mar-li me’od mikkem) is notoriously difficult to interpret. It has been taken in three different ways: (1) “For I am very bitter for me because of you,” that is, because of your widowed condition (cf. KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NJB, REB, JB, TEV). This does not fit well, however, with the following statement (“for the LORD has attacked me”) nor with the preceding statement (“You must not return with me”). (2) “For I am far more bitter than for you” (cf. NASB, NIV, NJPS, NEB, CEV, NLT). This does not provide an adequate basis, however, for the preceding statement (“You must not return with me”). (3) “For my bitterness is too much for you [to bear]” (cf. NAB, NRSV, NCV, CEV margin). This is preferable because it fits well with both the preceding and following statements. These three options reflect the three ways the preposition מן may be taken here: (1) causal: “because of, on account of” (BDB 580 s.v. מִן 2.f; HALOT 598 s.v. מִן 6), not that Orpah and Ruth were the cause of her calamity, but that Naomi was grieved because they had become widows; (2) comparative: “more [bitter] than you” (BDB 581 s.v. 6.a; HALOT 598 s.v. 5b), meaning that Naomi’s situation was more grievous than theirs – while they could remarry, her prospects were much more bleak; and (3) elative, describing a situation that is too much for a person to bear: “too [bitter] for you” (BDB 581 s.v. 6.d; HALOT 598 s.v. 5a; IBHS 267 §14.4f; e.g., Gen 4:13; Exod 18:18; Deut 17:8; 1 Kgs 19:17), meaning that Naomi’s plight was too bitter for her daughters-in-law to share. While all three options are viable, the meaning adopted must fit two criteria: (1) The meaning of this clause (1:13b) must provide the grounds for Naomi’s emphatic rejection of the young women’s refusal to separate themselves from her (1:13a); and (2) it must fit the following clause: “for the hand of the LORD has gone out against me” (1:13c). The first and second options do not provide adequate reasons for sending her daughters-in-law back home, nor do they fit her lament that the LORD had attached her (not them); however, the third option (elative sense) fits both criteria. Naomi did not want her daughters-in-law to share her sad situation, that is, to be poor, childless widows in a foreign land with no prospect for marriage. If they accompanied her back to Judah, they would be in the same kind of situation in which she found herself in Moab. If they were to find the “rest” (security of home and husband) she wished for them, it would be in Moab, not in Judah. The Lord had already deprived her of husband and sons. She could do nothing for them in this regard because she had no more sons to give them as husbands, and she was past the age of child-bearing to raise up new husbands for them in the future – as if they could wait that long anyway (1:13a). For a discussion of these three options and defense of the approach adopted here, see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 80-81.

[1:13]  ⁴⁹ tn Heb “for the hand of the Lord has gone out against me” (KJV, ASV, NASB, NIV all similar). The expression suggests opposition and hostility, perhaps picturing the Lord as the Divine Warrior who is bringing calamity upon Naomi. See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 113.

[2:18]  ⁴⁹ tc MT vocalizes ותרא as the Qal verb וַתֵּרֶא (vattere’, “and she saw”), consequently of “her mother-in-law” as subject and “what she gathered” as the direct object: “her mother-in-law saw what she gathered.” A few medieval Hebrew mss (also reflected in Syriac and Vulgate) have the Hiphil וַתַּרְא (vattar’, “and she showed”), consequently taking “her mother-in-law” as the direct object and “what she gathered” as the double direct-object: “she showed her mother-in-law what she had gathered” (cf. NAB, TEV, CEV, NLT). Although the latter has the advantage of making Ruth the subject of all the verbs in this verse, it would be syntactically difficult. For one would expect the accusative sign אֶת (’et) before “her mother-in-law” if it were the direct object of a Hiphil verb in a sentence with a double direct object introduced by the accusative sign אֶת, e.g., “to show (Hiphil of רָאָה, ra’ah) your servant (direct object marked by accusative sign אֶת) your greatness (double direct object marked by accusative sign אֶת) (Deut 3:24). Therefore the MT reading is preferred.

[2:18]  ⁵⁰ tn Heb “that which”; the referent (how much grain) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:18]  ⁵¹ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:18]  ⁵² tn Heb “and she brought out and gave to her that which she had left over from her being satisfied.”

[2:3]  ⁵⁵ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:3]  ⁵⁶ tn Heb “and she went and entered [a field] and gleaned in the field behind the harvesters.” Cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV “the reapers”; TEV “the workers.”

[2:3]  ⁵⁷ sn The text is written from Ruth’s limited perspective. As far as she was concerned, she randomly picked a spot in the field. But God was providentially at work and led her to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who, as a near relative of Elimelech, was a potential benefactor.

[1:22]  ⁶¹ tn Heb “and Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess, her daughter-in-law, with her, the one who returned from the region of Moab.”

[1:22]  ⁶² tn The pronoun appears to be third person masculine plural in form, but it is probably an archaic third person dual form (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 94).

[1:22]  ⁶³ tn This statement, introduced with a disjunctive structure (vav [ו] + subject + verb) provides closure for the previous scene, while at the same time making a transition to the next scene, which takes place in the barley field. The reference to the harvest also reminds the reader that God has been merciful to his people by replacing the famine with fertility. In the flow of the narrative the question is now, “Will he do the same for Naomi and Ruth?”

[4:1]  ⁶⁷ tn The disjunctive clause structure (note the pattern vav [ו] + subject + verb) here signals the beginning of a new scene.

[4:1]  ⁶⁸ tn Sometimes translated “redeemer.” See the note on the phrase “guardian of the family interests” in 3:9.

[4:1]  ⁶⁹ tn Heb “look, the guardian was passing by of whom Boaz had spoken.”

[4:1]  ⁷⁰ tn Heb “turn aside” (so KJV, NASB); NIV, TEV, NLT “Come over here.”

[4:1]  ⁷¹ tn Heb “a certain one”; KJV, ASV “such a one.” The expression פְלֹנִי אַלְמֹנִי (pÿloni ’almoni) is not the name of the nearest relative, but an idiom which literally means “such and such” or “a certain one” (BDB 811-12 s.v. פְלֹנִי), which is used when one wishes to be ambiguous (1 Sam 21:3; 2 Kgs 6:8). Certainly Boaz would have known his relative’s name, especially in such a small village, and would have uttered his actual name. However the narrator refuses to record his name in a form of poetic justice because he refused to preserve Mahlon’s “name” (lineage) by marrying his widow (see 4:5, 9-10). This close relative, who is a literary foil for Boaz, refuses to fulfill the role of family guardian. Because he does nothing memorable, he remains anonymous in a chapter otherwise filled with names. His anonymity contrasts sharply with Boaz’s prominence in the story and the fame he attains through the child born to Ruth. Because the actual name of this relative is not recorded, the translation of this expression is difficult since contemporary English style expects either a name or title. This is usually supplied in modern translations: “friend” (NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT), “so-and-so” (JPS, NJPS). Perhaps “Mr. So-And-So!” or “Mr. No-Name!” makes the point. For discussion see Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 99-101; R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 233-35; F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 196-97. In the present translation “John Doe” is used since it is a standard designation for someone who is a party to legal proceedings whose true name is unknown.

[4:1]  ⁷² tn Heb “and he turned aside” (so KJV, NASB); NRSV “And he went over.”

[3:16]  ⁷³ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Naomi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:16]  ⁷⁴ tn Heb “said.” Since what follows is a question, the present translation uses “asked” here.

[3:16]  ⁷⁵ tn Heb “Who are you?” In this context Naomi is clearly not asking for Ruth’s identity. Here the question has the semantic force “Are you his wife?” See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 223-24, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 184-85.

[3:16]  ⁷⁶ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:16]  ⁷⁷ sn All that the man had done. This would have included his promise to marry her and his gift of barley.

[4:3]  ⁷⁹ tn Or “redeemer.” See the note on the phrase “guardian of the family interests” in 3:9.

[4:3]  ⁸⁰ tn The perfect form of the verb here describes as a simple fact an action that is underway (cf. NIV, NRSV, CEV, NLT); NAB “is putting up for sale.”

[2:2]  ⁸⁵ tn The cohortative here (“Let me go”) expresses Ruth’s request. Note Naomi’s response, in which she gives Ruth permission to go to the field.

[2:2]  ⁸⁶ tn Following the preceding cohortative, the cohortative with vav conjunctive indicates purpose/result.

[2:2]  ⁸⁷ tn Heb “anyone in whose eyes I may find favor” (ASV, NIV similar). The expression אֶמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו (’emtsa’-khen bÿ’enayv, “to find favor in the eyes of [someone]”) appears in Ruth 2:2, 10, 13. It is most often used when a subordinate or servant requests permission for something from a superior (BDB 336 s.v. חֵן). Ruth will play the role of the subordinate servant, seeking permission from a landowner, who then could show benevolence by granting her request to glean in his field behind the harvest workers.

[2:2]  ⁸⁸ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Naomi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.