The initial clause, Long ago, in the days before Israel had a king, provides the setting of time for the following story, but there are certain complications in the expression used in the original text. The Hebrew has literally “when the judges judged.” This becomes doubly confusing, since “the judges” would seem to imply old information. This would, of course, be true for the Jews who would read the story; but it is essential that some modification of this expression be made in a number of receptor languages. An additional difficulty occurs in the use of the term “judges,” since in many societies it may seem quite anomalous to have a judge ruling. The task of ruling exists with executive power and not with judicial authority. In reality, of course, the judges of the Old Testament were essentially like “chiefs” in many present-day societies. They not only judged differences between people, but they were primarily the leaders who gave direction to the life of Israel. So Targum: “and it happened in the days in which the chiefs ruled” (negid negidayyaʾ). Accordingly, in many languages it is necessary to render this first clause as “During the time when chiefs ruled the country of Israel” or “… the people of Israel.” To express duration of time one may also say in some languages “When judges were ruling the country of Israel.” Such an expression may eliminate the necessity for a general expression such as “During the time when.” The historical period could be marked as it is done in Good News Translation, Long ago, in the days before Israel had a king. However, as the words for “chief” and “king” are identical in many receptor languages, this might create the impression that at that time there were no chiefs in Israel, which, of course, would be wrong.

In English the expression there was a famine is a way of introducing famine as new information, but in many languages there is simply no noun for famine; rather, some verb expression must be employed; for example, “the people had nothing to eat.” It is often important to indicate that the famine was the result of a natural catastrophe rather than merely that the people had run out of food because they did not plan properly. In some languages, therefore, one must say “because of drought the people had nothing to eat.”

The phrase in the land may need to be made somewhat more specific (for example, “in that land”) so as to refer back specifically to “the land of Israel.” See W. Gesenius and F. Buhl, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 1949, s.v. ʾerets. In certain instances, however, it is not necessary to indicate explicitly the place, since this may have already been introduced in the first clause, “When chiefs ruled the land of Israel.” One may either omit the specific reference to land or employ a pronominal expression such as “there.”

The particle translated by So constitutes an important transitional device to show the relationship between the famine mentioned in the first sentence and the decision of Elimelech to go with his family to the country of Moab. In some languages this transition may be made even more explicit: “As a result” or “Because of this famine.”

In a number of languages it is quite awkward to speak of the activity of a man and after that introduce information concerning his wife and two sons who were with him. It may be preferable to translate “So a man, together with his wife and two sons, went….”

An even more disturbing element, as far as the discourse structure of this introduction is concerned, is the fact that a man is mentioned together with his wife and two sons, and then only later are the names of the various persons given. This may seem particularly awkward, since the first part of verse 2 may need to be coalesced with the second sentence of verse 1 to read “So a man from Bethlehem named Elimelech, together with his wife Naomi and their two sons Mahlon and Chilion, went to live for a while in the country of Moab.”

In some instances it may be useful to employ a classifier with Bethlehem, so that it may be identified as a “town” in Judah.

The country of Moab would normally be understood as the plateau of Moab, which is slightly higher than the mountainous country of Judah. To go to the country of Moab, Elimelech and his family would need to descend into the Jordan valley and ascend the other side. The Hebrew term “country” is normally used to designate the whole territory of a certain tribe. Gesenius and Buhl, s.v. sadheh. Compare Lois Pirot and Albert Clamer, La Sainte Bible, Tome III, Josué-Juges-Ruth-Samuel-Rois, Paris, 1955, ad loc., and F. M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine, Tome I, Paris, 1933, pages 278-281. Compare also NAB.

The expression to live for a while represents a rather technical Hebrew term to designate dwelling in some place for an indefinite amount of time as a newcomer and without original rights. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1966, s.v. ghur. It does not mean that Elimelech moved to Moab to stay there permanently; he was simply concerned about escaping temporarily the consequences of the famine which had taken place in Judah.

The proper names Elimelech, Naomi, Mahlon, and Chilion do have possible meanings in Hebrew. For example, Elimelech sounds like “God is King,” Naomi, like “my pleasantness” (compare the note on 1.20), Mahlon, like “illness,” and Chilion, like “consumption.” For parallels of these proper names in the El-Amarna letters and the Ugarit tablets, as well as for the function of these proper names in the narrative, see the discussions in W. Rudolph, “Das Buch Ruth übersetzt und erklärt,” Kommentar zum AT, XVI, 1962, ad loc.; M. Haller, “Die fünf Megilloth,” Handbuch zum AT, 1, 18, Tübingen, 1940, ad loc.; H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth, ATD 9, Göttingen, 1954, ad loc.; O. Eißfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen, 1964, page 651. Compare also M. Noth, Die israelitischen Personennamen, 1928, page 10. These proper names are not found elsewhere in the Old Testament, but they should be treated simply as proper names and not as symbolic designations. In other words, they should be transliterated rather than translated, and this means that, in general, they should be adapted to the kinds of sounds which occur in the receptor language. The basis for the adaption may be either Hebrew or some modern language dominant in the area. In a number of instances the form of proper names has already been decided by long practice, and modification is therefore extremely difficult, particularly if Naomi is in current use as a proper name. For an analysis of difficulties involved in transliterations, see E. A. Nida, Bible Translating, London, 1961, pages 243-246, and Toward a Science of Translating, Leiden, 1964, pages 193-195. In all instances of transliterating, the translator must be careful that the form of the proper name does not sound like some receptor language word having a vulgar meaning.

It is extremely difficult to know precisely what is meant in the reference the clan of Ephrath. Several different solutions have been proposed, of which three seem to have the widest acceptance: (1) this is merely a designation of the inhabitants of the country around Bethlehem; Haller, ad loc. (2) the phrase identifies “Ephrathah” with Bethlehem (compare Micah 5.2 {Micah 5.1 in the Hebrew text.}); that is to say, “the Ephrathites” is only another way of talking about the inhabitants of Bethlehem itself; This is the idea given in the standard Hebrew dictionaries. and (3) the phrase designates a clan of Judah which lived in Bethlehem. Tamisier in Pirot-Clamer, ad loc.; Gillis Gerleman, “Ruth—Das Hohelied,” Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, Neukirchen, 1965, ad loc. Since there is no special evidence for the first solution, and since the second solution appears to be a feature of later history, the third solution is probably to be preferred.

While they were living there is a repetition of what has already been stated in verse 1. It is, however, more acceptable in the Hebrew text, since the names of the members of the family are given in verse 2, and then a further reference to their relation to Bethlehem, the clan of Ephrath, is introduced. Therefore, before talking about the death of Elimelech in verse 3, it is necessary to repeat the fact that he had gone with his family to Moab. However, if the identification of the people by means of proper names (the first sentence of verse 2) is coalesced with the second sentence of verse 1, it may be unnecessary and even misleading to repeat the information concerning their going to Moab and living there. Accordingly, in some languages this clause is omitted.

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 .