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.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:11: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Naomi’s apparent suggestion that she might bear more sons for her daughters-in-law to marry sounds crudely out of place in a Tonga setting. Surely there would have been some near kinsmen available who could have performed this vital socioreligious function, e.g., an uncle or cousin of the deceased (from the mother’s side of the family).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 169.

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:14: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Boaz’ desire for secrecy was to avoid any gossip, or worse, an open scandal in the community. But in view of everything that has preceded, his actions do arouse suspicions in the minds of readers who are very familiar with the opposite situation—where subterfuge is necessary in order to cover up an illegitimate relationship and to avoid a court case. Thus a footnote explaining his motivation here may be required.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 180.

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 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 2:17: 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.