Vetus

Testamentum
BRILL Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013)663-669 brill.com/vi

Translating the Preposition 'm in the Book of Ruth

Jeremy Sehipper
Temple University
schipper@temple.edu

Abstraet
This article argues that there are six cases in the Book of Ruth where tbe preposition 'm may be
translated as "under tbe autbority of..." (1:7,11,22; 2:6,19 [2x]). The preposition means more than
Just "witb" in tbese verses.

Keywords
The Book of Ruth, prepositions, authority, Naomi, Boaz

In an influential VT artiele published in 1968, Thomas Thompson and Dorothy

Thompson write, "We may then eonelude that Ruth and Orpah are under the
authority of Naomi; and this is implied in verse eight [of ehapter one] when
Naomi releases them and tells them to return to their father's [sic] house."'
Over the last several deeades, subsequent seholarship on Ruth has aeeepted this
eonelusion v^athout mueh eontroversy, although some debate remains regard-
ing the nature of Naomi's authority over her daughters-in-law (legal, moral,
ete.).2 As with Thompson and Thompson, seholars who aeeept this point tend
to make their ease on the basis of what the text implies rather than its speeifie
wording. Yet I vi^iU argue that an analysis ofthe nuanees of teehnieal voeabu-
lary in the book of Ruth shows that Naomi's (and Boaz's) authority appears
direetly in the text rather than just through implieation. There are six eases
in Ruth where one may translate the preposition 'm as "under the authority

" T. Thompson and D. Thompson, "Some Legal Problems in tbe Book of Rutb," VTi8 (1968), p. 96
(empbasis added).
^' For representative examples of arguments for either legal or moral authority, see F. W. Bush,
Ruth/Esther (WBC 9. Dallas, 1996), p. 218; J. M. Sasson, Ruth: A New Translation with a Philologi-
eal Commentary and a Formalist-Folklorist Interpretation (2nd ed.; Biblical Seminar 10; Sheffield,
1995). PP-123-25.
Kcininklijkc lirill NV, Luidcn, my^ 1101:
664 / Schipper / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 663-669

of..." (1:7, u, 22; 2:6,19 [2x]).^ When used to descrihe Naomi's relationship to
her daughter(s)-in-law in these cases (1:7,11, 22; 2:6), 'm serves a multivalent
function. It communicates not only that her daughter(s)-in-law accompanied
her, hut that they were under her authority. After a brief overview of options
for translating the preposition 'm in Ruth, I will examine these six examples in
connection to Boaz (2:19) and then to Naomi (2:6; followed by 1:7,11,22).

Various Definitions of 'm

Various forms of the preposition 'm occur 15 times in Ruth. In two places, the
form and context of 'm suggests the translation "from" {m'm; 2:12; 4:10). For
most cases in Ruth, however, the form or context of the preposition suggests
the translation "with" as in "deal(t) with X kindly"(i:8h [3X]), "Yhwh he with
you" (2:4), or, to translate somewhat idiomatically, "stick with X" (2:8, 21, 22).
Along these lines, the word 'mh in 1:7b is often translated as "with her" or "mit
ihr" as in "and her two daughters in law with her" (KJV); "Accompanied by her
two daughters-in-law" (JPS); "with her two daughters-in-law" (RSV); "she and
her two daughters-in-law" (NRSV); "und ihre beiden Schwiegertchter mit ihr"
(Luther; Schlachter 1951,2000). The preposition's use in v. 7 has evoked little, if
any, discussion in the standard critical commentaries.* Most scholars take it as
simply implying that Naomi's daughters-in-law accompanied her as she hegan
her Journey back to Judah as confirmed by the feminine plural subject in v. 7b:
"They went along the road in order to return to the land of Judah." Moreover,
the major extant versions suggest this sense as well (e.g., LXX^; Vulg.).^ The ver-
sions present no major textual difficulties with this half verse.
Yet, as with most prepositions in Biblical Hebrew, 'm has a wide semantic
range. Outside of Ruth, scholars have recognized that 'm has more technical
nuances. For example, although Jacob Milgrom does not cite any examples from
Ruth, he argues convincingly that one may translate 'm as "under the authority
of..." in a variety of texts elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (e.g.. Gen 23:4; 29:14,

' ' All translations are my own unless indicated otherwise.

"' See, among many others, the translations in Bush, Ruth/Esther, E. F. Campbell, Jr. Ruth: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 7; New York, 1975); Ch. Frevel, Das Buch Rut
(NSK.AT6; Stuttgart, 1992); R. D. Holmstedt, Ruth: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Waco, 2010); R.
L. Hubbard, TheBookof Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids, 1988); P. joon, Ruth: Commentairephilogique
et exgtique (Rome, 1986); K. Nielsen, Ruth (OTL; Louisville, 1997); Sasson, fiui/i; Y. Zakovitch,
Das Buch Rut: Ein jdischer Kommentar (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 177; Stuttgart, 1999); E. Zenger,
Das Buch Rut (2nd ed.; ZBKAT 8; Zurich, 1992).
^' As the Targum reads 'mh, it is inconclusive on this matter.
 J. Schipper / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 663-669 665

25.30; 31:38; Deut 15:12,16,18; Judg 17:10; 1 Sam 2:21; 2 Sam 19:34; 1 Kgs u:22).6 In
his commentary on Leviticus 23-27, Milgrom translates 'm with this technical
sense in Lev 25:6, 23, 35-36, 39-41, 47, 50, 53.'' Following Ephraim Speiser, Mil-
grom observes that these verses would not make as much sense if the preposi-
tion is always translated as "with" (e.g., 'mw; Lev 25:47b).^
For this article's purposes, it is important to note that 'm carries this tech-
nical sense throughout the laws regarding an impoverished relative in Lev
25:23-55. As many scholars observe, both Ruth and Lev 25:23-55 use the words
"redeem" or "redeemer(s)" with a similar teehnieal sense frequently (e.g., the
various forms of ^'/ for land redemption in Lev 25:25-26, 30, 33; Ruth 4:1, 3, 4
[5x], 6 [4x], 8,14; ef "redemption" in Lev 25:24, 26,29 [2x], 31, 32; Ruth 4:6, 7).
Moreover, both texts discuss redemption performed by a close (qrb) kinsper-
son (Lev 25:25; Ruth 2:20; 3:12; cf Lev 25:49). That both texts use similar teeh-
nieal language in regard to an impoverished relative inereases the likelihood
that both texts also use 'm with a similar teehnieal sense. Thus, 'm may have a
teehnieal sense when used to deseribe asymmetrieal relationships among fam-
ily members in 1:7,11,22; 2:6; 2:19 (2x). The elearest example in whieh 'm refleets
this teehnieal sense in Ruth eomes from 2:19.

Under Whom Does Ruth Work?: 'm in 2:19

Several of Milgrom's examples of this teehnieal use of 'm oeeur with various
forms ofthe verb "to serve" {'bd; ef Lev 25:40; Deut 15:12). As Milgrom argues,
Jaeob does not serve {'bd) "with" or alongside of his unele Laban (Gen 29:14,25,
30; 31:38). Instead, these verses suggest that he serves "under the authority" of
Laban. Similarly, one may translate Ruth 2:19b as, "[Ruth] told her mother-in-
law under whose authority she worked ['sr-'sth 'mw]. She said, "The name of
the man under whose authority 1 worked ['sr 'syty 'mw] today is Boaz." While
working in the field, Ruth stieks "with" ('m) Boaz's servants rather than with

^' J. Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27: A New Translation with Commentary and Notes (AB 3b; New York,
2001), pp. 2205-06. Milgrom argues tbat one should translate all of tbe examples of 'm listed in
BDB, 768,3a as "under the authority of...".
" For a discussion ofthe specific types of authority involved in several of these cases, see B. Wells,
"The Quasi-Alien in Leviticus 25," in The Foreigner and the Law: Perspectivesfromthe Hebrew Bible
and the Ancient Near East (R. Achenbach, R. Albertz and J. Whrle, eds.; BZAR 16; Wiesbaden,
2011), pp. 135-55.
*' Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, 2205; cf. E. Speiser, "Leviticus and tbe Critics," in Yehezkel Kaufrnann
Jubilee Volume (ed. M. Haran; Jerusalem, i960), pp. 38-39. For scholarship on Akkadian parallels
tbat provide evidence for this technical nuance, see Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27,2205.
666 J. Schipper/Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 663-669

Boaz himself (cf. 2:8, 21, 22). Although Boaz grants Ruth permission to work
in his field (2:8-9), the text does not indicate that he worked in the field that
day alongside Ruth. As with Jacob and Laban, Ruth does not work with Boaz.
Rather, she works under his authority.^

To Whom Does Ruth Belong?: 'm in 2:6

That Ruth works under the authority of Boaz does not mean that she is no lon-
ger under the authority of Naomi. Depending on the situation, multiple per-
sons may have authority over the same person (e.g.. Gen 24:53,55).'" Even after
Ruth begins to work in Boaz's field, she is still identified as Naomi's daughter-
in-law (Ruth 2:20,22; 4:15), and she presumably remains under Naomi's author-
ity (cf. Mic 7:6). Ruth is first granted permission to glean by Naomi (2:2), and
she dwells with Naomi while she gleans with Boaz's servants during the har-
vests (2:23b).
When Boaz first sees Ruth in his field, he asks one of his male servants,
"To whom does this female servant [belong] (Imy hn'rh /iz'i)?"" His question
may assume that Ruth is a servant in an unidentified household.'^ Elsewhere,
those who are asked a similar question respond by identifying the one under
whose authority they fall. In Gen 32:18 [Eng. v. 17], Jacob tells his servant "If
[Esau] asks you, 'To whom do you belong (Imy 'th)?'... Say, 'To your servant
Jacob'." Likewise, in 1 Sam 30:13, David asks an unidentified man, "To whom
do you belong (Imy 'tk) and where are you from?" The man responds, "I am an

' ' Moreover, Jacob describes himself as an alien under his uncle's authority when he instructs
his servants to tell Esau that, "I have sojourned under the authodty of Laban ( 'm-lbn grty)" (Gen
32:5; cf. gr-wtwSb 'nky 'mkm in 23:4a). Similarly, Ruth would qualify as an alien {gr) who works
under the authority of a wealthier family member, although the book never describes her with
this specific term. Also, Jacob and Ruth are owed "wages" (mkrt) a rare word that occurs only
in reladon to these two characters (Gen 29:15; 31:7,41; Ruth 2:12). Although it is unclear whether
Ruth deserves wages because she accompanied Naomi from Moab or because she gleaned in the
field presumably to provide Naomi with food (cf. 2:2,17-18; 3:15,17), both Jacob and Naomi work
as wage-eaming aliens under the authority of another family member.
"" See also the discussion of the so-called "slave-wife" in R. Westhrook and B. Wells, Everyday
Law in BiblicalIsraei An Introduction (Louisville, 2009), p. 55.
'" The preposition / funcdons as a genitive in the construction Imy (e.g.. Gen 38:25; Exod 32:24;
2 Sam 3:12).
'2' Among the versions, Syr. reads, 'TVhat is the good of this young woman?" and the Old Latin
and a minority of Old Greek manuscripts read, "Who is this young woman?" (Campbell, Ruth, 93).
Along these lines, the Targum reads, "Of which people ('mm') is this female servant?" Ibn Erza
interprets the question as asking to which man she belonged, i.e., her marital status.
 y. Schipper / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 663-669 667

Egyptian, a servant of an Amalekite." Along these lines, Boaz's servant informs

Boaz that, "[Ruth] is a Moabite female servant, who returned under the author-
ity of Naomi {'m-n'my) from the territory of Moab." Although Ruth currently
works in Boaz'sfield,the servant identifies her as a member of Naomi's house-
hold and under her authority. His use of 'm communicates that Ruth not only
accompanied Naomi upon her return from Moab, but that Naomi has author-
ity over her. As discussed below, a similar use of 'm occurs in 1:22.

Naomi and Her Daughter(s)-in-Law: 'm in 1:7,11,22

As in 2:6, 'm conveys more than the fact that Naomi's daughter(s)-in-law
accompany her in 1:7,11, and 22. The deaths of Elimelech, Mahlon, and Chilion
leave Orpah and Ruth under Naomi's authority. One may translate v. 1:7b as,
"Now [Naomi's] daughters-in-law were under her authority {'mh) and they
went {wtlknh) along the road in order to return to the land ofJudah." In w. 8-9,
Naomi encourages her daughters-in-law to return to their mothers' household
{byt 'mh) and to find security in their presumably future husband's household
{byt ysh).^^ In other words, she releases them from under her authority to find
another relation who would be eligible to exercise authority over them, such
as a mother or a husband. Although a few witnesses read the more common
phrase "father's house" rather than "mother's house" in v. 8, the less com-
mon reference may be used to create a pun with v. 7.'" The MT vocalizes "her
mother" in "house of her mother" as 'immh and vocalizes "under her author-
ity" in "Now her daughters-in-law were under her authority" as 'Lmmh. The
pun draws attention to the idea that Naomi is releasing them from under her
authority as their mother-in-law to return to the authority of their mothers.'^

'^' On the syntax of 1:9, see J. Schipper, "The Rhetoric and Syntax of Ruth 1:9a," VT 62 (2012),
pp. 642-645.
'" For 1:8, LXX* and multiple Old Greek manuscripts read "father's house" rather than "mother's
house" (MT), possibly to replace a term that occurs less frequently (Gen 24:28; Song 3:4; 8:2; cf.
"her house" in Prov 31:21,27) with one that occurs more frequently (Gen 24:38; 28:21; 38:ii;Josh 2:12;
Judg 9:1,18; 1 Sam 22:15; 2 Sam 14:9; Isa 7:17; Ps 45:11; 2 Chr 21:13, etc.). LXX^ and the Targum, how-
ever, support the MT.
'^' A number of scholars have suggested that Naomi has ambivalent feelings about her daughters-
in-law and tries to distance herself from them. See especially D. N. Fewell and D. Gunn, Com-
promising Redemption: Relating Characters in the Book ofRuth (Louisville, 1990), pp. 69-82. More
recently, see A. R. Davis, "The Literary Effect of Gender Discord in the Book of Ruth,"yi 132.3
(2013), pp. 495-513-
668 J. Sehipper / Vettts Testamentum 63 (2013) 663-669

After Naomi fails to eonvinee her daughters-in-law to return to Moab in

w. 8-9, she emphasizes the drawbaeks of remaining under her authority in v. 11
when she states, "Return my daughters! Why should you go under my author-
ity {tlknh 'my)? Are there still sons in my womb that eould beeome husbands
for you?"'^ It is important to note that Naomi assoeiates authority over her
daughters-in-law with a responsibility for their fiature marriages.'' Regardless
of her proposed strategy for finding them husbands at this point, the faet that
she elaims authority over them explains why she brings up the issue of mar-
riage in the first plaee. Often, marriage arrangements involved the household
member(s) who had authority over an unmarried household member, whether
it was a mother, a father, or a brother of a son or daughter; a father-in-law of a
daughter-in-law whose husband had died; or a man or woman with a male or
female servant (ef. Gen 16:3; 21:21; 24:2-4,32-58; 27:46-28:4; 29:28; 30:4, 9; 34:10-
11; 38:6-11; Exod 2:16-21; 34:16; Deut 7:3; 22:15-16; Josh 15:16-17; Judg 14:3,10; l Sam
18:27; Jer 29:6; Neh 13:25; 1 Chr 2:34-35, ete.).'* Along these lines, Naomi later
implies that she has some responsibility to find a husband for Ruth, who still
remains under her authority (3:1-2).
Ultimately, Naomi's arguments eonvinee Orpah. In 1:15, she returns to her
people and her gods. Ruth, on the other hand, remains eonneeted to Naomi's
people and her god(s) (v. 16).'^ Thus, in 1:22a, the narrator states, "So Naomi
returned. Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, was under her authority

'^' while scholars often discuss how, if at all, this verse relates to customs of levirate marriage
(cf Gen 38:11), that issue remains beyond the scope of this article.
' " Often, authority was conceptualized according to a Joint-family household model, whicb
represents the basic element or foundational building block for the organization of Israelite
and other ancient Near Eastern societies. Along these lines, Naomi connects autbority over her
daughters-in-law with a Joint-family household model tbat involves children and husbands. Yet,
at tbis point in the story, Naomi's seems to be witbout a surviving or clearly identifiable joint-
family household. Thus, a mother or husband's household would provide Orpah and Ruth with
a more easily identifiable social grouping. On tbe joint-family household model, see D. Schloen,
The House ofthe Father as Fact and Symbol: Patrimoniatism in Urgarit and the Ancient Near East
(Winona Lake, 2001), pp. 150-55.
' " On familial involvement in marriage arrangements of unmarried household members in
the ancient Near East, see tbe discussion and citations in H. J. Marsman, Women in Urgarit and
IsraeL Their Social and Religious Position in the Context ofthe Ancient Near East (Leiden, 2003),
pp. 43-106.
" ' In 1:16, tbe syntax of the phrase "your people, my people; your god(s), my god(s)" does not
specify whether Ruth means "your people/god(s) will be my people/god(s)" or "your people/
god(s) will remain my people/god(s)" since she is already a member of Naomi's household as her
daughter-in-law.
 J. Schipper / Vetus Testamentum 63 (2013) 663-669 669

{'mh), the one who returned from the territory of Moab."^ The context of
'mh in 1:22 suggests the same nuance as 'm-n'my in 2:6 discussed above. After
stating that Ruth is under Naomi's authority, the following clause ("the one
who returned from the territory of Moab") distinguishes Ruth from Orpah,
who was the one who did not return with Naomi and therefore was no lon-
ger under Naomi's authority (1:14-15). Ruth remained under Naomi's authority
because she accompanied her from Moab. Moreover, the fact that Naomi has
authority over Ruth explains why Ruth asks her permission to glean two verses
later (2:2).

Conclusions
This article examined the six occurrences in Ruth where one may translate
the preposition 'm as "under the author of..." (1:7,11, 22; 2:6,19 [2x]). When
used in reference to Boaz in 2:19, the context suggests this translation more
clearly than the translation "with." When used in reference to Naomi in 1:7,11,
22, and 2:6, it conveys the idea that her daughter(s)-in-law not only accompa-
nied her but fell under her authority. The hook's well-documented use of puns
and other plays on words strengthens the case that 'm means more than Just
"with" in these verses.^'

2' On the basis of its accent mark, the MT reads hassb as a perfect rather than a participle.
Thus, "(she) returned." In this case, the article h introduces a relative clause, e.g., "a viper on the
path who bites (hannosk) a horse's heels" (Gen 49:17) or "a highway that goes up (h'ol) from
Bethel" (judg 21:19b). Ruth 1:22; 2:6; 4:3 introduce a relative clause by prefixing the article h to a
finite verb as in 1 Kgs 11:9b, "... the god of Israel, who appeared (hannir') to him twice." On these
and other examples, consult Holmstedt, Ruth, pp. 28-29,74r 100; cf. hassb in 2:6; 4:3.
2" I would like to thank Stephen C. Russell, Jeffrey Stackert, and Bruce Wells for their comments
on drafts of this article.
Copyright of Vetus Testamentum is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.