Ruth 3:6

Ruth Visits Boaz

3:6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law had instructed her to do. ¹ 

Ruth 1:14

1:14 Again they wept loudly. ²  Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, ³  but Ruth ⁴  clung tightly to her. ⁵ 

Ruth 3:1

Naomi Instructs Ruth

3:1 At that time, ⁶  Naomi, her mother-in-law, said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home for you so you will be secure. ⁷ 

Ruth 2:19

2:19 Her mother-in-law asked her, ⁸  “Where did you gather grain today? Where did you work? May the one who took notice of you be rewarded!” ⁹  So Ruth ¹⁰  told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked. She said, “The name of the man with whom I worked today is Boaz.”

Ruth 2:18

Ruth Returns to Naomi

2:18 She carried it back to town, and her mother-in-law saw ¹¹  how much grain ¹²  she had gathered. Then Ruth ¹³  gave her the roasted grain she had saved from mealtime. ¹⁴ 

Ruth 2:23

2:23 So Ruth ¹⁵  worked beside ¹⁶  Boaz’s female servants, gathering grain until the end of the barley harvest as well as the wheat harvest. ¹⁷  After that she stayed home with her mother-in-law. ¹⁸ 

Ruth 3:16-17

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

Ruth Returns to Naomi

When Ruth returned to her mother-in-law, Naomi ¹⁹  asked, ²⁰  “How did things turn out for you, ²¹  my daughter?” Ruth ²²  told her about all the man had done for her. ²³  3:17 She said, “He gave me these sixty pounds of barley, for he said to me, ²⁴  ‘Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’” ²⁵ 

[3:6]  ¹ tn Heb “and she did according to all which her mother-in-law commanded her” (NASB similar). Verse 6 is a summary statement, while the following verses (vv. 7-15) give the particulars.

[1:14]  ² tn Heb “they lifted their voice[s] and wept” (so NASB; see v. 9). The expression refers to loud weeping employed in mourning tragedy (Judg 21:2; 2 Sam 13:36; Job 2:12).

[1:14]  ³ tc The LXX adds, “and she returned to her people” (cf. TEV “and went back home”). Translating the Greek of the LXX back to Hebrew would read a consonantal text of ותשׁב אל־עמה. Most dismiss this as a clarifying addition added under the influence of v. 15, but this alternative reading should not be rejected too quickly. It is possible that a scribe’s eye jumped from the initial vav on ותשׁב (“and she returned”) to the initial vav on the final clause (וְרוּת [vÿrut], “and Ruth”), inadvertently leaving out the intervening words, “and she returned to her people.” Or a scribe’s eye could have jumped from the final he on לַחֲמוֹתָהּ (lakhamotah, “to her mother-in-law”) to the final he on עַמָּהּ (’ammah, “her people”), leaving out the intervening words, “and she returned to her people.”

[1:14]  ⁴ tn The clause is disjunctive. The word order is conjunction + subject + verb, highlighting the contrast between the actions of Orpah and Ruth.

[1:14]  ⁵ sn Clung tightly. The expression suggests strong commitment (see R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth [NICOT], 115).

[3:1]  ³ tn The phrase “sometime later” does not appear in Hebrew but is supplied to mark the implicit shift in time from the events in chapter 2.

[3:1]  ⁴ tn Heb “My daughter, should I not seek for you a resting place so that it may go well for you [or which will be good for you]?” The idiomatic, negated rhetorical question is equivalent to an affirmation (see 2:8-9) and has thus been translated in the affirmative (so also NAB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

[2:19]  ⁴ tn Heb “said to her.” Since what follows is a question, the translation uses “asked her” here.

[2:19]  ⁵ tn Or “blessed” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV). The same expression occurs in the following verse.

[2:19]  ⁶ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:18]  ⁵ 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]  ⁶ tn Heb “that which”; the referent (how much grain) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:18]  ⁷ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:18]  ⁸ tn Heb “and she brought out and gave to her that which she had left over from her being satisfied.”

[2:23]  ⁶ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:23]  ⁷ tn Heb “and she stayed close with”; NIV, NRSV, CEV “stayed close to”; NCV “continued working closely with.”

[2:23]  ⁸ sn Barley was harvested from late March through late April, wheat from late April to late May (O. Borowski, Agriculture in Ancient Israel, 88, 91).

[2:23]  ⁹ tn Heb “and she lived with her mother-in-law” (so NASB). Some interpret this to mean that she lived with her mother-in-law while working in the harvest. In other words, she worked by day and then came home to Naomi each evening. Others understand this to mean that following the harvest she stayed at home each day with Naomi and no longer went out looking for work (see F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther [WBC], 140). Others even propose that she lived away from home during this period, but this seems unlikely. A few Hebrew mss (so also Latin Vulgate) support this view by reading, “and she returned to her mother-in-law.”

[3:16]  ⁷ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Naomi) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:16]  ⁸ tn Heb “said.” Since what follows is a question, the present translation uses “asked” here.

[3:16]  ⁹ 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]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “she”; the referent (Ruth) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[3:16]  ¹¹ sn All that the man had done. This would have included his promise to marry her and his gift of barley.

[3:17]  ⁸ tc The MT (Kethib) lacks the preposition אֵלַי (’elay, “to me”) which is attested in the marginal reading (Qere).

[3:17]  ⁹ sn ‘Do not go to your mother-in-law empty-handed.’ In addition to being a further gesture of kindness on Boaz’s part, the gift of barley served as a token of his intention to fulfill his responsibility as family guardian. See R. L. Hubbard, Jr., Ruth (NICOT), 225-26, and F. W. Bush, Ruth, Esther (WBC), 187.