In Central Africa, land — specifically a “garden” — is not regarded as being the property of an individual. Land rather belongs to the community as a whole and is administered through the chief or headman. A person may allow a relative or friend to use a field which he has worked in the past, but there is no thought of selling it. Once the ground has lost its productivity, a farmer will simply leave it and request a new piece of land from the chief. The translator must also make sure that the term “garden” (munda — Chichewa) is not understood as a metaphoric allusion to Ruth herself in this context, for as the subsequent discussion clearly indicates, an actual piece of land was being referred to. We note also that in Chichewa one must make explicit the fact that Elimelech was no longer alive, namely, by preceding the personal name with the term malemu ‘the late/deceased’.
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 181f.
The expression “her gods” is problematic in Chitonga because Leza is regarded as being sui generis; therefore, no plural is possible, except perhaps as a reference to the ancestral spirits. But for Naomi to say that Orpah had “gone back . . . to her ancestors” would represent a direct transculturization of the original, and this is not a valid translation option when producing a version that takes the biblical sociocultural context seriously. The solution in this instance is not difficult, namely, to adopt the alternative (and more likely) interpretation, “her god” (i.e., Chemosh, 1 Kg 11:33).
We also note in passing that the Tonga would generally consider their God to be the same as the Chewa God, Chauta, except for the mere variation in name, and vice-versa. The difference between these two peoples in specific religious belief and practice, however, is recognized and forms an important barrier that separates them.
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 170.
Apart from the unfamiliar food being eaten (“bread” in “wine,” which would seem very much like a reference to the Lord’s Supper to churchgoers today), Boaz’ invitation must not be made to sound too direct, such as “Come here,” or he could be misinterpreted as having an improper motivation. Furthermore, the whole idea of the master preparing a meal for his servants to eat (as a literal translation into Chichewa/Chitonga suggests) appears to be out of place, for that would signify a great reduction in his social status. Besides, he could have expected that they would have already helped themselves to a portion of his harvest, and so why should he “subsidize” them even more?
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 175.
The various Greek, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Latin and Hebrew terms that are translated as “sea,” “ocean,” or “lake” in English are all translated in Chichewa with one term: nyanja. Malawi, where Chichewa is spoken, has a lot of lakes but does not share a border with the ocean. (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
The problem of v. 5 reappears here in the words ” . . . lest I impair my own inheritance.” To a Chichewa/Chitonga reader, this excuse for the man’s refusal to marry Ruth just does not make sense. Even a more explicit statement of what was actually involved here does not help all that much; e.g., ” . . . because it might mean that my own children would inherit less” (Good News Bible). To be sure, the financial burden of polygamous marriages in Africa is being increasingly recognized, but that would not be regarded as a valid reason for refusing to carry out one’s familial responsibility. Fundamentally different presuppositions are being applied to this situation, and these cannot be reconciled in the text of a translation.
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 182.
Each of the proposals for rendering the measure “ephah” presents its own difficulties: (a) a transliteration would mean nothing in the receptor language; (b) a local substitute (e.g., mtanga ‘large basket’, Chichewa) would distort the cultural context somewhat; (c) a modern equivalent (e.g., “twenty-five pounds,” Good News Bible) would deny the historical setting; and (d) a combination (e.g., “an ephah, which is about a mtanga full/twenty-five pounds”) is rather too long. In Chichewa/Chitonga the cultural substitute appears to be the best choice here because even the original reference did not involve an exact figure: “about an ephah.” “Barley,” too, is unknown, but the context does suggest at least that it was some type of grain crop, an identification which would be supported by the use of “basket” for “ephah” — as long as the loanword bbaali (Chitonga) is not mistaken as referring to the more common cash crop, ‘burley tobacco.’
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 175f.
Section headings should not be ignored when one is considering potential problem areas from a cultural point of view. One suggested heading which begins the section starting at v. 13 reads “Boaz and his descendants” (Good News Bible). The average reader, however, is not likely to be very familiar with Boaz. But he has undoubtedly heard of King David. It would seem that this is also the point of emphasis of the original author as well; otherwise, why give this listing at all and have it conclude with this climactic name? Therefore a more appropriate heading would be “The ancestors of King David” (Chichewa).
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 184.
The rhetorical question, “Is this Naomi?” may be misunderstood if rendered literally to imply that the people did not recognize Naomi after so many years. But the question is rather a shocked comment upon her miserable social condition due to the loss of her husband and sons. Thus a more appropriate expression would be (Chichewa) “Ha! so Naomi has come back like this?”
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 171.
