Language-specific Insights

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:20: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Naomi’s statement that God (Yahweh) cares for both “the living and the dead” corresponds to the Bantu world view, not so much due to the agency of God as mentioned, but because the dead are seemingly put on an equal plane with the living—they comprise but one social community.

It is difficult to render the Hebrew term go’el adequately in Chichewa/Chitonga due to the cultural differences involved. In general, the function of this person in society was to protect the interests of the family and clan: their land, property, freedom, and posterity. Thus he had the obligation to “redeem” (through personal purchase) what had been lost, to avenge the death of kinsmen, and should he happen to be the closest relative to a deceased male of child-bearing age, to marry the widow. The problem is that, not unexpectedly, there is no single term which would cover all of these functions in any Central African language. There would be a “clan representative” (Chichewa: nkhoswe), usually the senior woman’s eldest brother, who does conduct negotiations with his counterparts in matters such as marriage and legal disputes (customary law). But he would never personally be responsible for carrying out acts of revenge or to act as husband in a levirate marriage (not as nkhoswe, that is). The best, then, that can be done in translation is to employ a descriptive phrase which focuses upon the most relevant components of the term’s meaning in this particular context; e.g., Chichewa: “(he is) one of our relatives, the one who has the responsibility of nourishing us” (or: bringing us up, i.e., caring for us).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 176f.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:15: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

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.

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:9: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

It is a valid translation procedure to indicate that Boaz was “surprised,” perhaps even a bit shocked, as he asked the question, “Who are you?” This attitude is definitely implied in the vivid Hebrew expression immediately preceding, “behold, a woman lay (lit. ‘[is] lying’) at his feet!” (3:8). The “surprise” could easily be included as part of the quote margin or, more idiomatically, as an exclamation introducing Boaz’ words; e.g., “Ah-ah, you—you are who?” (Chichewa). By making this sentiment explicit in the text, the translator also helps to dispel any errant idea that some sort of immoral activity was taking place there at Boaz’ threshing floor.

According to the Chichewa/Chitonga norms of social decorum, Ruth is entirely too forward in informing Boaz of his responsibility over against her. A literal (Revised Standard Version) rendering of her request that he “spread (his) skirt” over her would definitely convey improper sexual overtones. To overtly mention “marriage” (Good News Bible), on the other hand, would be forbidden as well (e.g., T: “to eat the name” of the deceased). Only an immoral woman would attempt something as blatant as that. Ruth’s situation, as complicated as it was, would have to be handled by the family representatives, for this was not an individual matter. In an effort to remain more indirect, the Chichewa translates “Since you are a relative, you have the responsibility of caring for me. Please ‘bring me up!'”

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 178f.

See also the ethical consideration of translating this into Bomu described by Schadrac Keita and Janet Dyk in The Scene at the Threshing Floor: Suggestive Readings and Intercultural Considerations on Ruth 3, The Bible Translator 2006, p. 17ff. .

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:12: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Among the Tonga, the procedure for determining the person who is to assume responsibility for the widow (i.e., to inherit his “name” / ancestral spirit and familial responsibilities) is somewhat more complicated. The primary consideration is not only the “closeness” of the relationship of the potential husband to the deceased (as in the Hebrew), but also his social suitability, which involves a complex of factors; e.g., present marital status, personality, economic ability to support a(nother) wife, etc. The dead man’s relatives (on the mother’s side) would decide upon several possible candidates, and the woman would then be able to select from among them. She might even choose not to get married again, but not normally if she were childless as Ruth was.

There is also a linguistic problem in conveying the concept of “closer” relative. In Chitonga, for example, kinsmen/women are distinguished as being either “nearer” or “farther” in relationship according to an elaborate set of social criteria. Closest are one’s own blood brothers and sisters; these form the mukwasyi as they sit around the same fire fueled by dung from their common herd of cattle. Next are those who are regarded as being equivalent to one’s “father,” “mother,” “brother,” or “sister”; they belong to one’s cikombo or “umbilical cord.” The final group comprising the inner circle of relatives (or “clan,” mukowa) would include all those males who would be allowed to “eat one’s name” (kulya zind), that is, succeed to one’s position upon death. Normally only a man who was in a “brotherly” or “fatherly” relationship to the deceased (on his mother’s side of the family) would be allowed to “inherit” his wife. The great difficulty in this case is that Boaz, being a relative of Elimelech, does not qualify at all according to the Tonga kinship perspective, and therefore the usual terminology cannot be employed. As a musazinyina, or one who would sit around the same fireplace at a funeral, he could legally “marry” Ruth, but he could not enter the place of her dead husband to preserve his line of descent.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 179f.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:4: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Boaz’ words of greeting to his workers (“The Lord be with you!”) and their reply to him (“The Lord bless you!”) have a distinctly liturgical ring about them. They make Boaz sound like the local parish pastor or priest. These were conventional formulas of welcome in Hebrew, but their formal correspondents fit into an entirely different speech register in many receptor languages. By replacing them with local equivalents in the receptor language, however, such as “You are seen, clansmen” . . . “Yes, we are seen” (Chitonga), would eliminate an essential religious component that probably ought to be retained in this story. The wish that God would “be with” a person is conceptually difficult for two reasons. As has been noted, according to traditional belief, God is regarded as living far away from man, personally and psychologically, with no real desire to come any closer (although in times of calamity he may be cajoled into helping by means of prayers and offerings). Secondly, the reason for inviting his immediate presence is not readily apparent. The meaning must there-fore be clarified with an expression such as “May God be good-hearted (i.e., favorable) to you” (Chichewa).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 172f.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:5: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

A literal translation of Boaz’ proposition, ” . . . you are also buying Ruth,” is in fact a misrepresentation of both Hebrew and Tonga social culture. In neither societies was a wife, or a widow, “bought,” for the “marriage present” (Hebrew mohar [Gn 34:12]; Chitonga — lobold) was in effect a gift of compensation, presented from the family/clan of the bridegroom to the family of the bride which served to seal the marriage and bind the two families together. In this particular situation, i.e., levirate succession, not even the lobola was involved; the man was simply making a public agreement to marry Ruth.

It is difficult to convey the full meaning of the original expression: “in order to restore the name of the dead to his inheritance.”
This is due to the different perspectives between the biblical and the Bantu cultures with regard to the land. The importance of preserving the “name” of the deceased through offspring begotten on his behalf is present in both, but in an African context this practice was more intimately connected with their religious beliefs; i.e., a dead man’s children had the obligation of preserving his presence in the community of the “living dead” (spirits) by “remembering” him in sacrifices and prayers. But that this child (or children) would then inherit his property so as to “keep it in the family” is a foreign notion and would thus require some additional explanation.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 182.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:6: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

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.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:10: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Upon hearing that Ruth “fell on her face,” many receptors would come to the conclusion that she was either suddenly taken ill or that she was deathly afraid of Boaz. A rather different honorific gesture in the presence of an adult male would be employed among the Tonga; for example, to simply genuflect in ordinary cases, but to kneel when speaking to a male in-law on her father’s side. A woman would also kneel to avoid the normal custom of shaking hands with a man at times when she is ritually unclean, e.g., during menstruation. Ruth’s reply to Boaz should not sound as if she is insulting his kindness and concern for her; cp. Good News Bible: “Why should you be so concerned about me?” In many languages of Central Africa, “foreigner” is rendered by a word which has a wide area of meaning stranger, traveler, guest, etc. (as in the old Chichewa Bible). And since in local society “guests” in particular are received with honor and well cared for, Ruth’s surprise at Boaz’ good will toward her seems to involve a cultural contradiction. Indeed, Boaz would be remiss if he did not give Ruth special attention. Thus “foreigner” has to be translated as “outsider” (i.e., with respect to race, religion, nationality, etc. [Chichewa]) or “non-tribesperson” (Chitonga).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 174.