Translation commentary on Ruth 2:4: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Boaz’ words of greeting to his workers (“The Lord be with you!”) and their reply to him (“The Lord bless you!”) have a distinctly liturgical ring about them. They make Boaz sound like the local parish pastor or priest. These were conventional formulas of welcome in Hebrew, but their formal correspondents fit into an entirely different speech register in many receptor languages. By replacing them with local equivalents in the receptor language, however, such as “You are seen, clansmen” . . . “Yes, we are seen” (Chitonga), would eliminate an essential religious component that probably ought to be retained in this story. The wish that God would “be with” a person is conceptually difficult for two reasons. As has been noted, according to traditional belief, God is regarded as living far away from man, personally and psychologically, with no real desire to come any closer (although in times of calamity he may be cajoled into helping by means of prayers and offerings). Secondly, the reason for inviting his immediate presence is not readily apparent. The meaning must there-fore be clarified with an expression such as “May God be good-hearted (i.e., favorable) to you” (Chichewa).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 172f.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:13: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Section headings should not be ignored when one is considering potential problem areas from a cultural point of view. One suggested heading which begins the section starting at v. 13 reads “Boaz and his descendants” (Good News Bible). The average reader, however, is not likely to be very familiar with Boaz. But he has undoubtedly heard of King David. It would seem that this is also the point of emphasis of the original author as well; otherwise, why give this listing at all and have it conclude with this climactic name? Therefore a more appropriate heading would be “The ancestors of King David” (Chichewa).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 184.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:18: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

It would have been extremely impolite for Ruth, had she been an African, to take back home with her the food which was left over from the meal which she had eaten at Boaz’ farm. That would certainly give the impression that she had a greedy nature. The custom is rather that she leave a little food on her plate to show that she had been satisfied by her host (even if she was really still hungry). This is, in fact, what was suggested by v. 14, “and she had some [food] left over.”—only to be apparently contradicted now in v. 18. Further aspersions on Ruth’s character result from a literal reproduction of the final clause of this verse: “(Ruth) gave (Naomi) what food she had left over after being satisfied” (cp. old Chichewa Bible: mkute ‘food remaining from the night before’). A woman would be considered most selfish if it were discovered that she had filled herself with food first and then had given the left-overs to her mother-in-law. In a traditional African society, greed, or gluttony, is one of the most abhorrent of characteristics, as attested to by many proverbs and folktales.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 176.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:13: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Naomi’s complaint that God was afflicting her is typical enough, but that would be understood only in a very general sense. If she were an African, she would be likely to press this further to find out why all this trouble had befallen her. A more crucial question, however, would be to ascertain who was the underlying cause. In this situation one might expect that a diviner would be consulted in order to determine either in what way she had offended her ancestral spirits that they should allow this to happen, or who was the “witch” that was bent upon destroying her family, and thus also herself.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 169.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:5: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

A literal translation of Boaz’ question, “Whose maiden (young woman — New American Standard Bible) is this?” would be very inappropriate in Chichewa, for it suggests that he is asking about whom she is married to (with an ulterior motive in mind). He would have to say, “Who is this lady?” (i.e., the assumption being that she is married, but the term used is one of respect).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 173.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:14: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

In Chichewa/Chitonga the expression “Blessed be the Lord!” produces a collocational clash, for God (Chauta/Leza) is the ultimate dispenser of blessings, and consequently he cannot exist in a state of being “blessed” himself. He can, on the other hand, be “praised,” which is what parents and relatives would normally do at the birth of a long-awaited child.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 185.

Translation commentary on Ruth 2:20: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

Naomi’s statement that God (Yahweh) cares for both “the living and the dead” corresponds to the Bantu world view, not so much due to the agency of God as mentioned, but because the dead are seemingly put on an equal plane with the living—they comprise but one social community.

It is difficult to render the Hebrew term go’el adequately in Chichewa/Chitonga due to the cultural differences involved. In general, the function of this person in society was to protect the interests of the family and clan: their land, property, freedom, and posterity. Thus he had the obligation to “redeem” (through personal purchase) what had been lost, to avenge the death of kinsmen, and should he happen to be the closest relative to a deceased male of child-bearing age, to marry the widow. The problem is that, not unexpectedly, there is no single term which would cover all of these functions in any Central African language. There would be a “clan representative” (Chichewa: nkhoswe), usually the senior woman’s eldest brother, who does conduct negotiations with his counterparts in matters such as marriage and legal disputes (customary law). But he would never personally be responsible for carrying out acts of revenge or to act as husband in a levirate marriage (not as nkhoswe, that is). The best, then, that can be done in translation is to employ a descriptive phrase which focuses upon the most relevant components of the term’s meaning in this particular context; e.g., Chichewa: “(he is) one of our relatives, the one who has the responsibility of nourishing us” (or: bringing us up, i.e., caring for us).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 176f.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:15: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The expression “her gods” is problematic in Chitonga because Leza is regarded as being sui generis; therefore, no plural is possible, except perhaps as a reference to the ancestral spirits. But for Naomi to say that Orpah had “gone back . . . to her ancestors” would represent a direct transculturization of the original, and this is not a valid translation option when producing a version that takes the biblical sociocultural context seriously. The solution in this instance is not difficult, namely, to adopt the alternative (and more likely) interpretation, “her god” (i.e., Chemosh, 1 Kg 11:33).

We also note in passing that the Tonga would generally consider their God to be the same as the Chewa God, Chauta, except for the mere variation in name, and vice-versa. The difference between these two peoples in specific religious belief and practice, however, is recognized and forms an important barrier that separates them.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 170.