kinsman-redeemer, next-of-kin

The Hebrew that is translated as “kinsman-redeemer” (or “next-of-kin” or “close relative”) is translated in Yasa as “a near family member who has responsibility for protecting the family.”

Joshua Ham explains why: “One of the most important terms in the book of Ruth is the Hebrew word go’el. This word is often translated kinsman-redeemer in English Bibles. In ancient Hebrew culture, the go’el could play many roles. If a married man died without children, his brother (acting as go’el) was expected to marry the widow and carry on the dead man’s lineage. If someone was forced to sell their family land (keeping in mind that family land was very important in the Old Testament), a family member (again acting as go’el) was supposed to eventually restore the family’s title to the land. If a family member was murdered, it was up to the go’el to seek justice.

“As you can imagine, there’s just no way we’re going to find a single word in any language that covers all of those cultural aspects. And if we tried to explain all of those aspects in the text itself, it would get unwieldy pretty fast. So in translating a word like go’el, we try to pick out the most salient points. In the Yasa text of Ruth, we ended up with something like ‘a near family member who has responsibility for protecting the family.’ It’s a bit smoother in Yasa than it sounds in English!”

In Cusco Quechua it is translated as “close relative of a corpse.”

The translation consultant Bill Mitchell (in Omanson 2001, p. 428) tells this story: “The translators struggled to translate the idea [of the near relative responsible for helping a family or clan member hit by misfortune, for example, loss of property, liberty or life]. The translation consultant asked them, ‘Is there anyone in your wider family who takes responsibility for a relative in such circumstances?’ They replied, ‘Yes, of course.’ ‘What do you call that person,’ the consulted asked. ‘There is no special name,’ they said. The consultant replied, ‘If a widow or an orphan needed help, what would they say to this person?’ ‘It will probably seem a bit strange to you, but they would say: ‘You are my close relative and I am your corpse.’’ The translators introduced this into their translation. When they tested it out with different groups, they found that it communicated the Hebrew concept of go’el very well.”

In Southern Birifor it is translated as “funeral husband.” (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)

See also redeem / redemption and redeemer.

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 3:12

For the clause I am a close relative and am responsible for you, see the comments on verse 9. In some languages, in order to say I … am responsible for you, one must introduce some aspect of obligation as a separate component of the phrase; for example, “I must take care of you,” “it is my duty to take care of you,” or “our customs demand that I take care of you.”

This reference to a closer relative introduces a factor of surprise into the story. Everything has proceeded as Naomi outlined it to Ruth, and no mention has been made until now of the other person who is an even closer relative. It is surprising that Naomi apparently did not know about the closer relative. That is why Staples (“Note on Ruth 2:20,” AJSL 54, 1937-1938, pages 62-65) states that Naomi did know about his existence. However, for that purpose he has to change the text of Ruth 2.20 into “he is not our goʾel” and that of Ruth 3.12 into “I am not really your goʾel,” but these renderings are very unnatural and not convincing. If she did know, she did not communicate the fact to Ruth, or at least the writer of the story does not indicate that she did. At any rate, Boaz knew, and it is this knowledge which prompted his rather cautious behavior. He was evidently attracted by Ruth, since otherwise he could have evasively referred her to the closer relative. Against Humbert, op. cit., ad loc. The closer relative obviously had prior claims and prior duties, and for Boaz to have disregarded the other man’s rights might have resulted in serious consequences. Probably Ruth, when infringing on the rights of the closer relative, could even have been charged with adultery. See Rowley’s comparison with the Tamar case, op. cit., pages 93-94.

In many languages it is difficult to speak of a closer relative. Sometimes one can say “one who is nearer to your family,” “a man who is not as separated from your family as I am,” or “one who stands closer to your mother-in-law than I do.” In some languages it is even necessary to use some specific form of address; for example, “someone who can call your mother-in-law sister” or “someone who can call your mother-in-law aunt.” This, of course, depends upon the generation which is involved, and since Ruth would presumably be marrying a person in her own generation, it may be preferable to have the closer relative be related to Naomi as nephew to aunt. In almost every society there are slight differences of usage in kinship terms, and therefore it is necessary to represent accurately the relationships which are specified within each language-culture system.

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 .