Translation commentary on Ruth 4:12: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The relationship between and significance of the names mentioned in the first part of this verse would not be grasped by most receptors in Central Africa. The focus of the original is upon the unorthodox levirate union between Judah and Tamar which resulted in the birth of Perez, who became the ancestor of the clan of Ephrath, to which Boaz belonged. Readers who would be acquainted with the Judah/Tamar episode (Gen. 38) would undoubtedly have some negative feelings about it due to the surface consideration that an act of prostitution was involved between a father and his daughter-in-law, a most inauspicious event from an African perspective. This is regarded as incest and behavior which would be sure to bring down the wrath of the ancestors upon the offending clan, and perhaps even the community at large. Furthermore, the emphasis upon the line of Boaz in these final verses of the book seems a bit strange, since the children that Ruth bore were technically the foster offspring of Mahlon. The fact that these men were of the same clan would not be obvious to the average reader, nor would the book’s thematic emphasis on Boaz’ faithfulness to the ancient traditions of Israel in his dealings with Ruth.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 184.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:3: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The Chewa have a similar custom to the one mentioned here (cf. Lev. 19:9-10), that is, the poor of the community are allowed to go into the field of a wealthy farmer after the harvest to gather what has been left behind (i.e., to “glean”). People of lesser means, however, make sure they get all of the grain (usually maize) out of the field the first time through.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 172.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:17: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

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.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:12: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Here again Naomi’s words are far too blunt, when translated literally, to have been spoken to her daughters-in-law, unless she intended to insult them! The overt reference to her bearing children (which they had not) and the implicit mention of sexual intercourse (despite the euphemism: to “have a husband this night”) are particularly troublesome from the point of view of Chewa/Tonga verbal etiquette. Naomi sounds as if she is despising her daughters-in-law.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 169.

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:15: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

A literal translation of the Good News Bible, i.e., “Take off your cloak and spread it here,” could easily be mistaken as an overt suggestion on the part of Boaz that Ruth offer herself sexually to him. The outer cloth (chitenge) which Central African women wear is occasionally used for such a purpose. The grain which Boaz gave her would be understood then as payment for her compliance with his request.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 180.