Ruth 3:15, in the widely-used 1769 revision of the King James Bible, reads:
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
However, the 1611 edition of the KJV reads:
“And he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
Scrivener’s 1873 edition of the KJV likewise reads: “Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and he went into the city” (The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873], Ru 3:15.)
The New King James Version-which is not just a new King James Version, and which here does not follow the 1611 KJV’s reading-has “she”:
Also he said, “Bring the shawl that is on you and hold it.” And when she held it, he measured six ephahs of barley, and laid it on her. Then she went into the city. (NKJV)
Other modern Bible versions are likewise divided between “he” and “she.” For example, the NIV and NRSV read “he,” while the ESV, LSB, and NASB read “she.”
Which is correct? How do we know? We have discussed various features of the Hebrew Massoretic text on this blog before, such as whether the Hebrew of the name “Jehovah” hints at the incarnation of the Son of God. What do Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew printed texts read? What about the LXX, the various editions of the Latin Vulgate, other ancient sources, and English Bibles before the KJV? The picture below, from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, the Masoretic text edited by the Hebrew Christian Jacob ben Chayyim, gives the answer (Matthew 5:18):
While both readings in Ruth 3:15 are doubtless factually accurate, since both Boaz and Ruth actually entered the city, the inspired reading, the one dictated by the Holy Spirit to the original penman of Scripture, is “he,” not “she.” Why? Please read my analysis of the passage in this link to find out, and feel free to comment upon it here (but please read it first before commenting). Thank you.
–TDR
It does not matter since both are true. They both went to the city, but probably at different times.
Hello Anonymous!
It may be true that they both went into the city. But which words are inspired by God and which are not most certainly does matter.
Thanks.
A friend of mine had emailed me about an article published by Dr. Chet Kulus in the Bible Baptist Theological Seminary (Dr. Srouse) periodical, arguing that “and she went” is a justifiable translation of the Hebrew in the Masoretic Text. My response to my friend is below; perhaps it might help someone else as well.
Dr. Kulus is my brother in Christ and, while I disagree with him here, that does not, of course, make him my enemy or anything like that.
Dear Brother ——,
Thanks for writing!
I wonder if Dr. Kulus saw my article on Ruth 3:15 or if we just happened to write on it in the relatively comparable time frame. In any case, I appreciate his desire to defend the KJV and his book dealing with numerical “contradictions” in the OT historical books.
I read his article with interest. I found it odd that he said, without any further clarification, that “she” was the reading of the KJV. The 1611 KJV read “he,” while “she” is the reading of the 1769. Between 1611 and 1769 people with a KJV would not have had the “she” reading. His analysis here appears to be an oversimplification.
He gives Ezekiel 23:49 as an (alleged) example where a masculine form is allegedly representing a feminine one:
Ezek. 23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and YE SHALL KNOW that I am the Lord GOD.
A much more plausible explanation, however, is that Ezekiel ends the metaphor of Israel as a woman when he returns to the refrain, all throughout the book of Ezekiel, “ye shall know that I am the LORD,” and that is why “ye shall know” is masculine.
Ruth 1:8 reads:
And Naomi said unto her two daughters in law, Go, return each to her mother’s house: the LORD deal kindly with you, as YE HAVE DEALT with the dead, and with me.
One would think that this would indeed be feminine, but I think it is more plausible that a male relative, friend, etc. is in Naomi’s mind in addition to Ruth and Orpah.
I did not look at all the examples after that, stopping after the Joel 2:22. Joel 2:22 may be a legitimate example of what he is claiming, although the type of Hebrew form is significantly different from what appears in Ruth 3:15.
My overall sense is that Dr. Kulus is engaging in more special pleading than I personally am willing to abide by in order to justify the “she” of the 1769 KJV. Either 100% or the very strongly overwhelming majority of the time the Hebrew from in Ruth 3:15 means “he went” not “she went,” and it is not ambiguous. I understand a degree of special pleading and am myself strongly biased in favor of the KJV’s readings, but when the 1611 KJV itself reads “and he went” I see no read to engage in this degree of special pleading in order to justify an alteration of Blaney in 1769.
That is the end of my email to my friend. Of course, I did not look at every single example cited, look at scholarly commentaries on the places he cited, etc. Maybe his case is stronger than it appeared to me when I looked at it to the relatively cursory level at which I did. But the above, at least, is my initial conclusion.
I think what Gesenius is saying is that the more common form, the masculine, is on occasion used where the subject is feminine, simply because it is the more common form (and what is used for mixed-gender groups). That is a legitimate point, and it does make Dr. Kulus’ argument less than total special pleading. I looked up the other examples by Gesenius, however, and it looks to me like what is happening, at least in the examples he provided, is not a situation where a verb form does not have an expressed subject but we can just decide it is feminine although the form is masculine, but situations where there is an expressed subject (like “kine,” feminine, of Bashan) but a masculine verb form is used. This does happen once in a while, and at least in the examples Gesenius lists it does not create any ambiguity because the actual subject is always quite clear. Ruth 3:15 would seem to me to be rather different–here we are supposed to, allegedly, supply an unexpressed “she” in translation for a masculine form that at least 99% of the time means “he went.”