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 1:22: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The time reference here is important, since in a Tonga sociocultural setting it would immediately arouse the suspicions of the people whose village Naomi was entering. A person does not usually move during the period extending from after the fields have been planted until after the harvest has been completed. One’s crops mean life, and therefore it must have been some serious offense which drove Naomi away from her former home at such a time. Perhaps it had been divined that she was guilty of practicing witchcraft — after all, were not all her men now dead? No, she would not be welcomed with open arms into a Tonga village at this time of year.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 171.

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 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 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 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 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 2:6: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The double reference to Ruth’s country of origin is somewhat awkward stylistically, especially in direct discourse. There does, however, seem to be a special emphasis on “Moab” in the book, and therefore the foregrounding effect of the repetition ought to be retained, if possible, in the translation (cp. also 1:6, 22). In this passage the reiteration also serves to stress Ruth’s foreign origin.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 173.