Wendland, Ernst R. The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation (UBS Monograph Series No. 2). London: United Bible Societies, 1987.
“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.
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.
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. .
The symbolical use of personal names is common in Bantu languages as well. It would not be surprising for a person to change his/her name after experiencing some severe misfortune or affliction, e.g., to Mavuto “Troubles” (Chichewa). In this case the actual meaning of the names cited here probably ought to be put into the text, or their significance, and in addition a certain dramatic impact, will be lost to the listener; e.g., “Don’t call me Naomi, the Happy One,” she answered, “call me Mara, the Sad One . . . ” (Good News Bible). An explanatory footnote is also possible, but this has the distinct disadvantage of diminishing the forcefulness of the original at this point, which is the climax of Chapter 1. Since puns are as popular and appreciated in a Bantu language as in Hebrew, it is not difficult to reproduce the play on words which occurs at the end of this verse; e.g., ” . . . because God Almighty has troubled me very much (or caused my heart to become bitter; Chichewa).”
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 171.
The custom described here of exchanging a shoe to confirm the act of “redemption” is completely unfamiliar to the peoples of Central Africa. Neither an ordinary business transaction nor the practice of marrying the widow of a dead relative would require any such witness or attestation. The word of the elders who made the arrangement would be sufficient. It is possible that in this case the custom could be mistaken for the nearest (but still distant) equivalent, which among the Chewa would be the gift made by a man to the father of the girl whom he desires to marry, i.e., chikole ‘engagement pledge*. There is indeed some correspondence in the respective situations (i.e., a marriage is ultimately concerned), but there are also enough differences in detail to direct readers away from such an interpretation; e.g., the individuals involved, the fact that only one shoe was given (surely a useless gift!), the comments by the original author, etc.
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.
For the Tonga, who are patrilocal and practice the custom of giving “bridewealth” (lobola) whereby the wife’s clan is “compensated” for her physical loss to the group, it is normal to hear that Ruth and Orpah were going to accompany Naomi on her return to her homeland. There they would be married to the near relatives of their deceased husbands. If they had refused to go along, their fathers would be compelled to return the bridewealth, especially since these marriages had not really been “established,” as there were apparently no children involved in either case. This situation would not be as customary among the Chewa, who are matrilocal (at least during the early years of a marriage) and who do not observe the bridewealth tradition.
While it is normal to attribute the “giving of food” to God, it would be most unusual to hear that he had “visited his people.”
According to traditional belief, God lives, estranged from man, far away in the sky. The Hebrew verb in this context refers to Yahweh’s gracious care for his people; i.e., he “blessed” them “by giving them good crops” (Good News Bible).
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 168.
The cultural implications of the Hebrew expression, “you have made this last kindness greater than the first,” need to be brought out in the receptor language; e.g., Good News Bible: “You are showing even greater loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law.” The problems connected with Boaz’ introductory words, “May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter,” have already been discussed. Boaz is not a priest, and thus it is not at all clear (if the expression is rendered literally) why he is wishing God’s “blessing” upon Ruth.
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 179.