|
|
Post by richardklein on Dec 30, 2016 20:50:50 GMT -6
Who went to the city?
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Dec 31, 2016 23:59:36 GMT -6
Just completed a sermon series through Ruth and saw the same issue.
It is quite correct to say that they BOTH went to the city.
Ruth "left [her dwelling] and went and gleaned in the field" (2:3).
So "she gleaned in the field" (2:17) and then "went into the city" (2:18).
So, when "she came to her mother-in-law" who dwelt in the city ....
She lived in the city and worked outside the city.
Boaz "went up to the gate" (4:1) and "took ten men of the elders of the city" (4:2).
Apart from a discussion of the manuscript evidence, for me the narrative fits best with Ruth going into the city. Ruth is the first to rise with an intention to leave. The passage seems to be following the footsteps of Ruth at this point. She got up. Boaz blesses her before she leaves, and then the author follows her home. It is only at 4:1 that the author takes up Boaz's footsteps.
I vote for Ruth!
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Jan 2, 2017 13:04:29 GMT -6
I'm going to vote for Boaz! :-) I am not going to go with that corrupted 1769 revision of the KJV but stick with the 1611 which accurately translates the Hebrew. :-) I am not sure why the modern translations say "she", for the form of the verb is 3ms and the 3fs form for the same verb is used in the next sentence. Here is Keil & Delitzsch comment - "When Boaz had given her the barley he measured out, and had sent her away, he also went into the city." This is the correct rendering, as given by the Chaldee, to the words העיר ויּבא; though Jerome referred the words to Ruth, but certainly without any reason, as יבא cannot stand for תּבא. This reading is no doubt found in some of the MSS, but it merely owes its origin to a mistaken interpretation of the words."
|
|
