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 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 4:15: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The hyperbole in these words of praise to Naomi sounds to be rather overdone in a Bantu context. No mother would be expected to value a daughter-in-law more than her own children, particularly in a matrilineal situation (as most of the tribes are in Central Africa), where a man’s offspring are reckoned as part of his wife’s family line and not his own. In effect, he begets children on behalf of another clan group; in other words, a daughter-in-law would be bearing for the lineage of another woman. This would not, however, lessen the joy that a woman would have at becoming a grandmother for the first time. In an African society, the relations between grandparents and grandchildren are especially close (paradoxically, they interact with each other as “age-mates”), and the former often do “take care of” (v. 16, Good News Bible) the latter in a village setting.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 185.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:20: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

The symbolical use of personal names is common in Bantu languages as well. It would not be surprising for a person to change his/her name after experiencing some severe misfortune or affliction, e.g., to Mavuto “Troubles” (Chichewa). In this case the actual meaning of the names cited here probably ought to be put into the text, or their significance, and in addition a certain dramatic impact, will be lost to the listener; e.g., “Don’t call me Naomi, the Happy One,” she answered, “call me Mara, the Sad One . . . ” (Good News Bible). An explanatory footnote is also possible, but this has the distinct disadvantage of diminishing the forcefulness of the original at this point, which is the climax of Chapter 1. Since puns are as popular and appreciated in a Bantu language as in Hebrew, it is not difficult to reproduce the play on words which occurs at the end of this verse; e.g., ” . . . because God Almighty has troubled me very much (or caused my heart to become bitter; Chichewa).”

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 171.

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

It sounds rather strange right at the beginning to hear that “judges ruled” in the land of Judah. Traditionally the position of “judge” was not all that important in the Central African community, for it was the diviner who usually determined the question of guilt and innocence. It might be that subsequently the council of “elders” would decide what penalty ought to be meted out in the case of offenders. Even later in colonial history, when government-appointed official judges came on the scene, such men were never viewed as functioning in any capacity of administrative rule, for this work was being done by others. Part of the problem, of course, arises with the English translation itself. The Hebrew shophetim is in many contexts better rendered as “deliverers”; they acted more in the capacity of military leaders than as judicial arbiters. They would correspond to the paramount chief of certain African peoples, particularly those with a strong military tradition.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 166f.

For more of the “Ruth in Central Africa” series, see here.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:2: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

A family (clan) might well move to a different location at a time of prolonged drought (= famine in Central Africa) or when the ground/range was depleted. But in the past it would be unusual for them to travel out of the area of their particular ethnic group (which might include some closely related tribes, e.g., the Tonga, IIa, and Lenje of south-central Zambia). Thus Elimelech’s action of transfer-ring his family from Judah to Moab (i.e. outside of the land of the “twelve tribes”) is atypical from an African perspective. A man might go off to work in a “foreign” place in order to earn some hard cash, but then he would generally travel alone, leaving his wife and children behind.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 167.

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

It is somewhat of a surprise to hear that both of Elimelech’s sons married foreign women. It would have been expected that arrangements be made to have at least one of them marry a girl from “back home,” especially in the case where the family still clearly regarded Bethlehem in Judah as the place where they ultimately belonged (1:19,22). They had not even resided in the land of Moab all that long, i.e., ten years at the maximum. It is no doubt true to say that cross-tribal marriages were not the norm for the people of Judah either, at least not among those who took their religion seriously, but then again, the receptor would probably not know that information. There are many reasons why intertribal marriages are generally frowned upon by the Tonga, for example. Social and religious factors are especially prominent, e.g., differences in liminal customs at birth, maturation, marriage, and death; diverse religious practices, such as how to sacrifice and to whom (which ancestors); and so forth.

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 167.

Translation commentary on Ruth 1:6: A Cultural Commentary for Central Africa

For the Tonga, who are patrilocal and practice the custom of giving “bridewealth” (lobola) whereby the wife’s clan is “compensated” for her physical loss to the group, it is normal to hear that Ruth and Orpah were going to accompany Naomi on her return to her homeland. There they would be married to the near relatives of their deceased husbands. If they had refused to go along, their fathers would be compelled to return the bridewealth, especially since these marriages had not really been “established,” as there were apparently no children involved in either case. This situation would not be as customary among the Chewa, who are matrilocal (at least during the early years of a marriage) and who do not observe the bridewealth tradition.

While it is normal to attribute the “giving of food” to God, it would be most unusual to hear that he had “visited his people.”
According to traditional belief, God lives, estranged from man, far away in the sky. The Hebrew verb in this context refers to Yahweh’s gracious care for his people; i.e., he “blessed” them “by giving them good crops” (Good News Bible).

Source: Wendland 1987, p. 168.