2And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain behind someone in whose sight I may find favor.” She said to her, “Go, my daughter.”
The Greek and Hebrew that is translated in English as “grain” (or: “corn”) is translated in Kui as “(unthreshed) rice.” Helen Evans (in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 40ff. ) explains: “Padddy [unthreshed rice] is the main crop of the country and rice the staple diet of the people, besides which [grain] is unknown and there is no word for it, and it seemed to us that paddy and rice in the mind of the Kui people stood for all that corn meant to the Jews.” “Paddy” is also the translation in Pa’o Karen (source: Gordon Luce in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 153f. ).
Other translations include: “wheat” (Teutila Cuicatec), “corn” (Lalana Chinantec), “things to eat” (Morelos Nahuatl), “grass corn” (wheat) (Chichimeca-Jonaz) (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.), “millet” (Lambya) (source: project-specific notes in Paratext), “food” (Nyamwezi) (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific notes in Paratext)or ntimumma lujia / “seeds for food” (Lokạạ — “since Lokạạ does not have specific terms for maize and rice that can be described as grains”) (source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
The Hebrew that is transliterated as “Ruth” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign for “respect” referring to the respect that she shows for the mother-in-law as shown in Ruth 1:16. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
The Hebrew that is transliterated as “Naomi” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign for “changed identity” referring to the many life changes that Naomi goes through in the book of Ruth. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
Following are a number of back-translations of Ruth 2:2-2:5:
Noongar: “Ruth of Moab said to Naomi, ‘Let me go to the wheat-field and gather seed. I can go behind people who are kind to me.’ Naomi said to her, ‘Go, my daughter.’ So Ruth went to the wheat-fields and gathered wheat behind the wheat workers. Now, Boaz owned this wheat-field. He was Elimelech’s relative. Just then, Boaz arrived from Bethlehem. He said to the wheat workers, ‘God stays with you!’. They replied, ‘God bless you!’ Then Boaz asked the boss of the wheat workers, ‘This woman, who are her people?’” (Source: Bardip Ruth-Ang 2020)
Eastern Bru: “Ruth, the Moabite, said to Naomi: ‘Let me go glean in the fields. If the owner of the field is pleased with me, then I will glean in that field..’ And Naomi answered: ‘All right, child. Go, go.’ So Ruth went to glean in the fields following those who were harvesting. She did not know she had come to the field of Boaz. Boaz was from the clan of Elimelech. So Boaz came from Bethlehem, and he said to his harvesters: ‘God be with you.’ They answered: ‘Yes. And God give to you blessings also.’ Then Boaz asked the person who oversaw the people who harvested for him: ‘That young woman is whose child?’ (Source: Bru Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: (verses 4-5) “Now, Boaz arrived from Betlehem and he greeted the harvesters, ‘May the LORD help you(pl)!’ The harvesters replied, ‘May the LORD bless you(sg)!’ Then Boaz asked the servant whom he entrusted to supervise the harvesters, ‘Who is that young lady/woman?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “One day Ruth said to Naomi, ‘Let me go to the fields and pick up the grain left behind by the workers.’ Naomi replied, ‘Go ahead, my daughter.’ So Ruth went to the fields and began to pick up some of the left-over grain. And it happened that she was working in a field that belonged to Boaz, the man from the clan of her dead father-in-law, Elimelech! Just then, Boaz arrived from Bethlehem. He greeted the men who were harvesting the grain, saying, ‘I want Yahweh to bless you!’ They replied, ‘We want Yahweh to bless you, too!’ Then Boaz saw Ruth, and asked the foreman/man in charge of the other workmen, ‘Whose daughter is that young woman?’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
In these verses, the Hebrew and Greek that is translated as “come” or similar in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-ide (おいで), combining “come” (ide) with the respectful prefix o-. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
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 . . . .”
Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.
Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.
One way to do this is through the usage (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. When the referent is God, the “divine” honorific prefix mi- (御 or み) can be used, as in mi-kao (御顔) or “face (of God)” in the referenced verses.
In this short dialogue between Ruth and Naomi, the first verb in the Hebrew text introduces a desire on the part of Ruth, and it is followed by a particle which is roughly equivalent to “please” in English. Naomi’s answer is in the form of an imperative which expresses permission. Compare Joüon, par. 114, n. On the deprecative interjection -naʾ, see par. 105. Semantically, no politeness seems to be involved in its use. In many receptor languages the most natural equivalents would be “May I go to the fields to glean…?” and “Yes, go, my daughter.” Since there is a question followed by a response, it is often useful to have for the first verb of speaking a term such as “ask” or “request”—for example, “Ruth asked Naomi”—followed by a term such as “answer” or “reply”—for example, “Naomi responded.”
The name Ruth at the beginning of verse 2 is followed immediately by the emphasis upon her being a Moabite, so that literally the text reads “Ruth the Moabitess.” However, it is by no means always necessary to repeat this identification, For the Syriac translator also, this repetition seems to be superfluous. In 2.21, where he also omits “Moabitess,” he is even joined by Septuagint and Vulgate. though perhaps in the Hebrew text the repetition does have emphasis and may be a none-too-subtle way by which the author keeps reminding the reader of Ruth’s foreign background. (See comment on 1.22.)
In a number of languages there may be no technical term for “gleaning,” which means gathering up the heads of grain which the harvest workers left behind by accident. In many societies such a practice is simply not economically profitable, while in other parts of the world such grain is left on the ground for animals to eat. It is, of course, always possible to describe gleaning as “gathering up the heads of grain which were left behind by the harvest workers,” and it may be useful, therefore, to refer to certain Old Testament passages in which gleaning is mentioned (Lev 19.9-10; 23.22; Deut 24.19-22). It may even be useful to introduce a footnote; for example, “According to the law of the Hebrews, strangers, widows, orphans, and other poor people had the right to collect the ears of grain which had fallen from the hands of the reapers and were left behind in the field.”
That the harvest workers leave states explicitly what is implied in the Hebrew text. However, the harvest workers may require some explanation in certain languages, possibly a descriptive phrase which will more precisely designate what these people were doing; for example, “those who were cutting the grain,” “those who were harvesting the grain,” or “those who were gathering in the grain from the fields.”
Someone who will let me work with him is literally in Hebrew “after him in whose eyes I shall find favor.” This involves a rather frequent Hebrew idiom which occurs again in verses 10 and 13—though in the latter instance it is used primarily to indicate gratitude. In verse 2, however, it primarily involves permission, and it is translated in the New English Bible as “behind anyone who will grant me that favor.”
Go ahead is an idiomatic way of saying in English “Proceed to do what you have suggested.” In some languages this may be translated as “Go and do it” or “Do that.”
The word daughter, as has been noted in other instances, may need to be translated as “my daughter-in-law.” In fact, in some languages other terms of respect may be required, as Wendland states:
Instead of replying “Go, my child,” to Ruth’s request, Naomi would have sounded more idiomatic in Chewa by saying, “Alright, mother.” The first word shows 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. Wendland, The Cultural Factor, page 172.
Quoted with permission from de Waard, Jan and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Ruth. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.