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)
The Hebrew that is transliterated as “Ruth” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign for “respect” referring to the respect that she shows for the mother-in-law as shown in Ruth 1:16. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Spanish uses a formal vs. informal second-person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Spanish Bibles all use only the informal second-person pronoun (tú), with the exception of Dios Habla Hoy (third edition: 1996) which also uses the formal pronoun (usted). In the referenced verses, the formal form is used.
Sources and for more information: P. Ellingworth in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 143ff. and R. Ross in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 217ff.
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!'”
Expressions introducing direct discourse, such as he asked and she answered, normally precede the quoted words. In English, however, it is possible to place such expressions after direct discourse if the direct discourse is not too long, or they may be embedded within the direct discourse, as in the case of she answered in this verse. Some languages employ identifications both before and after direct discourse, thus providing an oral equivalent of quotation marks.
It’s Ruth, sir translates a Hebrew phrase “I Ruth your servant.” See B. A. Rebera, 1982, “Identifying participants in Old Testament dialogue,” The Bible Translator 33, pages 201-207. This phrase must often be rendered in a somewhat different form; for example, “I am your servant, Ruth” or “I am Ruth, your servant.” This use of “servant” must not imply that Ruth is asking to be made a servant, nor does it mean that she has already accepted the status of a servant to Boaz. Rather, it is an oriental expression of politeness and indicates Ruth’s attitude of respect for Boaz. For ʾamah with this meaning, see Baumgartner, s.v. The same formula is already found in Ugaritic. See J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan, 1965, page 105. In other languages an expression of respect may take the form of a special title for Boaz, for example, “I am Ruth, your honor” or “you who are so important, I am just Ruth, a humble person.”
The two sentences Because you are … marry me translate a single Hebrew sentence which is literally “spread your skirt over your maidservant, for you are next of kin.” This sentence has a poetic structure in Hebrew with a meter of 3 + 3. It is usually difficult to reproduce a very short section of poetic structure in a receptor language, especially one which involves a rather rare figure of speech which, if translated literally, might very well lead to a wrong understanding of Ruth’s intent.
For a discussion of the meaning of close relative, see the comments on 2.20. Because the relation between a close relative and marriage may not be at all clear, Good News Translation makes explicit the significance of being a close relative, namely, being responsible for taking care of someone. This is necessary for those cultures in which such a responsibility is by no means automatically included in such a relation. In fact, in many languages an expression “close relative” would imply that marriage would be impossible, since marriage of close relatives would mean incest. This means that it may be necessary to use a term for close relative or “next of kin” which will indicate clearly that Boaz is not someone who would be traditionally prohibited from entering into marriage with Ruth. In some languages the appropriate expression is “close relative by marriage” or “close relative because of the one I was married to,” a phrase which may be necessary in this context, but which, of course, must not be used throughout.
The consonants in the Hebrew expression rendered in Good News Translation as marry me may have two different meanings, depending upon the vowels which are associated with the consonants. With one set of vowel markings the meaning is “spread your skirt over your maidservant,” and with the other set of vowel markings the meaning is “spread your wings over your maidservant.” See the related comments on “protection” in 2.11-12. In general the meaning seems quite clearly to be a request for protection, with the specific meaning of marry me, For the reference to marriage see Deuteronomy 23.1 and Ezekiel 16.8. Compare also A. S. van der Woude (in THAT 1, 1971, s.v. kanaf): “Als Rechtsbrauch wird er (i.e., der Zipfel des Gewandes) vom Manne über die erwählte Braut ausgebreitet.” See also A. Jirku, Die magische Bedeutung der Kleidung in Israel, 1914, pages 14 ff. Arabic parallels to the levirate marriage show that the near kinsman established his claim to the widow by throwing his garment over her. See W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia, 1903, page 105; G. Jacob, Altarabisches Beduinenleben, 1897, page 58, and J. L. Burckhardt, Bemerkungen über die Beduinen und Wahaby, 1831, page 213. but most translators and commentators prefer to retain the literal idiom “spread your skirt over your maidservant.” Haller (op. cit., ad loc.) translates “wings,” but does not exclude in his commentary the possibility of the alternative reading. For him the ambiguity may even have been intended by the author. Hertzberg (op. cit., ad loc.) may be right in seeing in the reading “wings” a euphemism. In a sense, both components of meaning, union and protection, are present in the expression “spread your skirt over your maidservant,” So rightly H. H. Rowley, “The marriage of Ruth,” Harvard Theological Review XL, 1947, page 92. Rowley (note 57) quotes J. Lewy who (RHR cx, 1934, pages 31 ff.) cites Assyrian evidence showing that the skirt of the garment stood for the personality of the wearer, and especially for his honor. This evidence would signify that Boaz extended the cover of his position and person to Ruth. so that the difference in meaning between the two possible ways of writing the vowels with the Hebrew consonants is not great.
One of the serious difficulties involved in a literal translation of the Hebrew idiom, “spread your skirt over your maidservant,” is that it is too easily interpreted as an invitation to sexual intercourse, and this seems to be out of keeping with the characters of the story. In most instances, therefore, it may be best to give the meaning of the idiom in the text and, if necessary, provide a literal translation in a marginal note. It is, of course, not to be excluded that the narrator has been intentionally ambiguous and provocative (Campbell 1975, page 121, and Stasson, pages 70-71).
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.