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. 1  (Now they 2  arrived in Bethlehem at the beginning of the barley harvest.) 3 

Ruth 2:18

Ruth Returns to Naomi

2:18 She carried it back to town, and her mother-in-law saw 4  how much grain 5  she had gathered. Then Ruth 6  gave her the roasted grain she had saved from mealtime. 7 

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

sn This summarizing statement provides closure to the first part of the story. By highlighting Ruth’s willingness to return with Naomi, it also contrasts sharply with Naomi’s remark about being empty-handed.

2 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).

3 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?”

sn The barley harvest began in late March. See O. Borowski, Agriculture in Iron Age Israel, 91.

4 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.

5 tn Heb “that which”; the referent (how much grain) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

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

7 tn Heb “and she brought out and gave to her that which she had left over from her being satisfied.”