Translation commentary on Ruth 4:3: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

In Central Africa, land — specifically a “garden” — is not regarded as being the property of an individual. Land rather belongs to the community as a whole and is administered through the chief or headman. A person may allow a relative or friend to use a field which he has worked in the past, but there is no thought of selling it. Once the ground has lost its productivity, a farmer will simply leave it and request a new piece of land from the chief. The translator must also make sure that the term “garden” (munda — Chichewa) is not understood as a metaphoric allusion to Ruth herself in this context, for as the subsequent discussion clearly indicates, an actual piece of land was being referred to. We note also that in Chichewa one must make explicit the fact that Elimelech was no longer alive, namely, by preceding the personal name with the term malemu ‘the late/deceased’.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 181f.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:5: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

A literal translation of Boaz’ proposition, ” . . . you are also buying Ruth,” is in fact a misrepresentation of both Hebrew and Tonga social culture. In neither societies was a wife, or a widow, “bought,” for the “marriage present” (Hebrew mohar [Gn 34:12]; Chitonga — lobold) was in effect a gift of compensation, presented from the family/clan of the bridegroom to the family of the bride which served to seal the marriage and bind the two families together. In this particular situation, i.e., levirate succession, not even the lobola was involved; the man was simply making a public agreement to marry Ruth.

It is difficult to convey the full meaning of the original expression: “in order to restore the name of the dead to his inheritance.”
This is due to the different perspectives between the biblical and the Bantu cultures with regard to the land. The importance of preserving the “name” of the deceased through offspring begotten on his behalf is present in both, but in an African context this practice was more intimately connected with their religious beliefs; i.e., a dead man’s children had the obligation of preserving his presence in the community of the “living dead” (spirits) by “remembering” him in sacrifices and prayers. But that this child (or children) would then inherit his property so as to “keep it in the family” is a foreign notion and would thus require some additional explanation.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 182.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:6: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The problem of v. 5 reappears here in the words ” . . . lest I impair my own inheritance.” To a Chichewa/Chitonga reader, this excuse for the man’s refusal to marry Ruth just does not make sense. Even a more explicit statement of what was actually involved here does not help all that much; e.g., ” . . . because it might mean that my own children would inherit less” (Good News Bible). To be sure, the financial burden of polygamous marriages in Africa is being increasingly recognized, but that would not be regarded as a valid reason for refusing to carry out one’s familial responsibility. Fundamentally different presuppositions are being applied to this situation, and these cannot be reconciled in the text of a translation.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 182.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:7: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The custom described here of exchanging a shoe to confirm the act of “redemption” is completely unfamiliar to the peoples of Central Africa. Neither an ordinary business transaction nor the practice of marrying the widow of a dead relative would require any such witness or attestation. The word of the elders who made the arrangement would be sufficient. It is possible that in this case the custom could be mistaken for the nearest (but still distant) equivalent, which among the Chewa would be the gift made by a man to the father of the girl whom he desires to marry, i.e., chikole ‘engagement pledge*. There is indeed some correspondence in the respective situations (i.e., a marriage is ultimately concerned), but there are also enough differences in detail to direct readers away from such an interpretation; e.g., the individuals involved, the fact that only one shoe was given (surely a useless gift!), the comments by the original author, etc.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 182.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:9: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The reference to “buying from Naomi” is difficult for receptors to grasp, not only due to the cultural disparities which lay behind this conclusion of Boaz (as outlined above), but also because there is no previous hint in the text that Naomi was actually “selling” her land.
In fact, this would seem to be a very strange thing for a poor widow to do, for how then did she expect to support herself?

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 183.

Translation commentary on Ruth 4:10: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The importance of the preservation of one’s “name” in both Hebrew and Bantu society has been noted on a number of occasions throughout this narrative. We might call attention once more to the slight difference in orientation underlying this desire: the Tonga concern is focused upon the past and the need for the children of the deceased to keep in “contact” with his spirit through the established religious ritual; the Hebrew was interested more in the future and perpetuating the influence of the deceased “in the land” through his descendants.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 183.

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 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.