Translation commentary on Ruth 1:22: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The time reference here is important, since in a Tonga sociocultural setting it would immediately arouse the suspicions of the people whose village Naomi was entering. A person does not usually move during the period extending from after the fields have been planted until after the harvest has been completed. One’s crops mean life, and therefore it must have been some serious offense which drove Naomi away from her former home at such a time. Perhaps it had been divined that she was guilty of practicing witchcraft — after all, were not all her men now dead? No, she would not be welcomed with open arms into a Tonga village at this time of year.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 171.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:12: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

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.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:8: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The literal form of Naomi’s suggestion turns out to be very misleading in both Chewa and Tonga (it is somewhat problematic culturally in Hebrew as well; see the commentaries). It would be a grave insult indeed to tell a girl to “go back home and stay with your mother” (Good News Bible), for this would imply that she has failed somehow as a wife and needs to be sent back to her village in order to receive further domestic “training.” In fact, the marriage would probably end there. In this situation there is the added complication that Naomi seems to be acting contrary to custom by refusing to allow her widowed daughters-in-law to be married again to close relatives of the clan of the deceased (i.e., her own sons). Other possible negative implications are that Naomi is here verbally abusing her daughters-in-law (after luring them away from their village) because they had not been properly married to her sons, or worse, that Naomi did not want them along since she suspected them of being “witches”; for what other reason should her husband and only sons die in that foreign land? Her subsequent words would then be taken ironically—a curse in the form of a blessing: may God do to you as you have done to my two sons and me myself (i.e., through my husband — you and your people have killed them all off!).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 168f.

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 4:10: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The importance of the preservation of one’s “name” in both Hebrew and Bantu society has been noted on a number of occasions throughout this narrative. We might call attention once more to the slight difference in orientation underlying this desire: the Tonga concern is focused upon the past and the need for the children of the deceased to keep in “contact” with his spirit through the established religious ritual; the Hebrew was interested more in the future and perpetuating the influence of the deceased “in the land” through his descendants.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 183.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:1: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Boaz is introduced at this point in anticipation of the major role that he is about to play in the narrative, namely, as a husband to Ruth. From the Tonga kinship perspective, however, he is on the wrong side of the family—that of Elimelech (i.e., patrilineal descent).
If this had been a Tonga setting, Boaz would have had to come from among the dead a Tonga setting, Boaz would have had to come from among the dead husband’s mother’s relatives, i.e., from Naomi’s line (matrilineal descent).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 172.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:13: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

In Chichewa, Ruth shows enough deference by addressing Boaz as “my lord” (mbuye wanga ‘my master/uncle’), and she does not have to go on to refer to herself as “your maidservant” (which might well be interpreted literally in this context). This also eliminates any possible confusion with her subsequent words: ” . . . though I am not one of your maidservants.”

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 175.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:9: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Adults, whether of the same or the opposite sex, do not kiss one another publicly in traditional African society. A mother, however, may affectionately kiss her small child or baby. One must therefore indicate the social significance of this act in the original; e.g., “she bid them farewell by kissing them.” The reason for the daughters’ “weeping” is also not clear from the text. Loud public crying or wailing is normally done only at the time of a funeral.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 169.