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

It sounds rather strange right at the beginning to hear that “judges ruled” in the land of Judah. Traditionally the position of “judge” was not all that important in the Central African community, for it was the diviner who usually determined the question of guilt and innocence. It might be that subsequently the council of “elders” would decide what penalty ought to be meted out in the case of offenders. Even later in colonial history, when government-appointed official judges came on the scene, such men were never viewed as functioning in any capacity of administrative rule, for this work was being done by others. Part of the problem, of course, arises with the English translation itself. The Hebrew shophetim is in many contexts better rendered as “deliverers”; they acted more in the capacity of military leaders than as judicial arbiters. They would correspond to the paramount chief of certain African peoples, particularly those with a strong military tradition.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 166f.

For more of the “Ruth in Central Africa” series, see here.

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

Naomi’s instructions to Ruth sound very out of character for a God-fearing “mother” — to actually teach her daughter how to make herself attractive so that she can go out and entice men in the practice of prostitution! In this context it would seem as if Naomi is encouraging Ruth to carry on as a harlot so that she can earn enough money to support the two of them. It would be difficult to think of a more immoral proposition. The careful instructions about the need for secrecy as well as the time of action — at night (v. 2) and after the man had finished eating and drinking (the latter bearing a certain negative connotation in itself) — would serve to confirm this suspicion.

So would the advice to “lie down” at his feet under his blanket (v. 4). This was apparently (since we have this as the only clear instance [but note Ezek. 16:8]) a culturally symbolic act which was intended to dramatize for Boaz the responsibility that he had to protect, care for, and possibly even marry, Ruth. It is difficult to remove from the text the suggestion that sexual relations, and an illicit encounter at that, were a part of this rather elaborate procedure. An explanatory footnote is therefore necessary at this point.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 177f.

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 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 1:2: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

A family (clan) might well move to a different location at a time of prolonged drought (= famine in Central Africa) or when the ground/range was depleted. But in the past it would be unusual for them to travel out of the area of their particular ethnic group (which might include some closely related tribes, e.g., the Tonga, IIa, and Lenje of south-central Zambia). Thus Elimelech’s action of transfer-ring his family from Judah to Moab (i.e. outside of the land of the “twelve tribes”) is atypical from an African perspective. A man might go off to work in a “foreign” place in order to earn some hard cash, but then he would generally travel alone, leaving his wife and children behind.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 167.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:19: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

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.

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 2:9: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

“Young men” do not normally “draw water” in an African context, certainly not for any women who might happen to be present. Boaz’ rhetorical question of assertion, “Have I not charged the young men not to molest you,” has to be transformed into a direct statement so that its illocutionary force will not be misunderstood.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 174.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:4: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

It is somewhat of a surprise to hear that both of Elimelech’s sons married foreign women. It would have been expected that arrangements be made to have at least one of them marry a girl from “back home,” especially in the case where the family still clearly regarded Bethlehem in Judah as the place where they ultimately belonged (1:19,22). They had not even resided in the land of Moab all that long, i.e., ten years at the maximum. It is no doubt true to say that cross-tribal marriages were not the norm for the people of Judah either, at least not among those who took their religion seriously, but then again, the receptor would probably not know that information. There are many reasons why intertribal marriages are generally frowned upon by the Tonga, for example. Social and religious factors are especially prominent, e.g., differences in liminal customs at birth, maturation, marriage, and death; diverse religious practices, such as how to sacrifice and to whom (which ancestors); and so forth.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 167.