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 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 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 2:13: 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.

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

Instead of replying, “Go, my child,” to Ruth’s request, Naomi would have sounded more idiomatic in Chichewa by saying, “Alright, mother” (Chabwino, amai). The first word indicates her agreement with the request, the appellation shows her respect for her daughter-in-law. The use of personal names is completely taboo in such face-to-face dialogues (cp. Good News Bible — Naomi: “Now be patient, Ruth” (3:18). The relations between in-laws in a traditional environment are kept in an intricate social balance by an established set of status markers and terms of avoidance. This may be a minor stylistic matter, but when violations are compounded, especially in direct speech, it immediately brands the translation as being linguistically foreign.

There is also a problem of implication with the words ” . . . glean . . . after him in whose sight I shall find favor” (RSV). This would indicate that Ruth already had a specific person in mind. Thus the reference must be generalized; e.g., Good News Bible: “I am sure to find someone who . . . .”

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 172.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:11: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The wish of the people that Ruth be blessed with a large family would be welcome in a Bantu context as well. As the family and clan become more firmly established in number through the new generation, the potential links with the past are thereby strengthened, thus preserving “community” in both directions.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 184.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:14: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

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.