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

Naomi’s instructions to Ruth sound very out of character for a God-fearing “mother” — to actually teach her daughter how to make herself attractive so that she can go out and entice men in the practice of prostitution! In this context it would seem as if Naomi is encouraging Ruth to carry on as a harlot so that she can earn enough money to support the two of them. It would be difficult to think of a more immoral proposition. The careful instructions about the need for secrecy as well as the time of action — at night (v. 2) and after the man had finished eating and drinking (the latter bearing a certain negative connotation in itself) — would serve to confirm this suspicion.
So would the advice to “lie down” at his feet under his blanket (v. 4). This was apparently (since we have this as the only clear instance [but note Ezek. 16:8]) a culturally symbolic act which was intended to dramatize for Boaz the responsibility that he had to protect, care for, and possibly even marry, Ruth. It is difficult to remove from the text the suggestion that sexual relations, and an illicit encounter at that, were a part of this rather elaborate procedure. An explanatory footnote is therefore necessary at this point.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 177f.

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.

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:9: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

It is a valid translation procedure to indicate that Boaz was “surprised,” perhaps even a bit shocked, as he asked the question, “Who are you?” This attitude is definitely implied in the vivid Hebrew expression immediately preceding, “behold, a woman lay (lit. ‘[is] lying’) at his feet!” (3:8). The “surprise” could easily be included as part of the quote margin or, more idiomatically, as an exclamation introducing Boaz’ words; e.g., “Ah-ah, you—you are who?” (Chichewa). By making this sentiment explicit in the text, the translator also helps to dispel any errant idea that some sort of immoral activity was taking place there at Boaz’ threshing floor.

According to the Chichewa/Chitonga norms of social decorum, Ruth is entirely too forward in informing Boaz of his responsibility over against her. A literal (Revised Standard Version) rendering of her request that he “spread (his) skirt” over her would definitely convey improper sexual overtones. To overtly mention “marriage” (Good News Bible), on the other hand, would be forbidden as well (e.g., T: “to eat the name” of the deceased). Only an immoral woman would attempt something as blatant as that. Ruth’s situation, as complicated as it was, would have to be handled by the family representatives, for this was not an individual matter. In an effort to remain more indirect, the Chichewa translates “Since you are a relative, you have the responsibility of caring for me. Please ‘bring me up!'”

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 178f.

Translation commentary on Ruth 3:10: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The cultural implications of the Hebrew expression, “you have made this last kindness greater than the first,” need to be brought out in the receptor language; e.g., Good News Bible: “You are showing even greater loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law.” The problems connected with Boaz’ introductory words, “May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter,” have already been discussed. Boaz is not a priest, and thus it is not at all clear (if the expression is rendered literally) why he is wishing God’s “blessing” upon Ruth.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 179.

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 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 3:15: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

A literal translation of the Good News Bible, i.e., “Take off your cloak and spread it here,” could easily be mistaken as an overt suggestion on the part of Boaz that Ruth offer herself sexually to him. The outer cloth (chitenge) which Central African women wear is occasionally used for such a purpose. The grain which Boaz gave her would be understood then as payment for her compliance with his request.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 180.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:1: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The “city gate” (actually the public square within the main gate leading into the city) was where the local Hebrew elders would meet to discuss and decide the major issues affecting the community. The Chichewa functional correspondent would be the mphala, an open area in the village (often situated near the chiefs house) where similar activities are carried out and more; i.e., the men often eat here and gather also to play games and to work at various trades (e.g., basket making, wood carving, carpentry, etc.) Since the “gate” was so important in Hebrew culture, and hence in biblical literature, it would be advisable to retain the reference to form, if possible, coupling this with an indication of its function, either by a descriptive phrase (e.g., “at the meeting place”) or in combination with the culturally specific term (e.g., “at the mphala by the gate of the city”).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 181.