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.

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.

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.

In Chichewa/Chitonga the expression “Blessed be the Lord!” produces a collocational clash, for God (Chauta/Leza) is the ultimate dispenser of blessings, and consequently he cannot exist in a state of being “blessed” himself. He can, on the other hand, be “praised,” which is what parents and relatives would normally do at the birth of a long-awaited child.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 185.

This image of God having “wings,” even if it were recognized as being nonliteral, is too extraordinary to be meaningful in Chichewa/Chitonga. While God can be spoken of in anthropomorphic terms, one cannot attribute to him the features of an animal or bird, even figuratively. The associated ground of comparison is also quite unusual from their perspective, i.e., wings to provide refuge, shelter, protection, etc., instead of as a means of rapid transportation.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 175.

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.

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.