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.

Naomi

The Hebrew that is transliterated as “Naomi” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the sign for “changed identity” referring to the many life changes that Naomi goes through in the book of Ruth. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Naomi” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Ruth 4:3)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai and the Adamawa Fulfulde translation both use the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.

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 4:3

The identification of his relative must be the same as the phrase used in verse 1. It is very awkward in many languages to keep referring to a person without some proper name, but there is no alternative in the present discourse.

The statement of Boaz is literally in Hebrew: “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land which belonged to our kinsman Elimelech.” Good News Translation restructures these principal clauses into a cause-effect or reason-result relation, indicating that in view of the fact that Naomi has come back from Moab, she wanted to sell the field. One of the difficulties in translating this sentence is that this information is entirely new. There is no suggestion, for example, that Boaz had talked to Naomi about this subject. It may be that Boaz simply introduced the question of the land in order to pose this as the first problem or aspect of the negotiation. Such a procedure would certainly be a clever one. This is the opinion of Rowley, op. cit., pages 94-95.

In some languages it is important to indicate that the nearest relative would no doubt know about the field, and therefore the verse may be restructured as “then he said to the nearest relative, ‘You will remember the field that belonged to our relative Elimelech. Naomi has now returned from the country of Moab and she wants to sell it’ ” (cf. New English Bible).

The field that belonged to our relative Elimelech may be translated as “the field which our deceased relative Elimelech formerly owned.”

Our relative Elimelech may be rendered as “Elimelech who was a member of our family,” “Elimelech who belonged to our clan,” “Elimelech who was related to us,” or “Elimelech who was one of our kin.”

The Hebrew verb translated wants to sell is normally read as a participle “is selling.” So H. Greßmann, Die Schriften des Alten Testaments, Göttingen, 1910-1915, I, 2, page 275; Haller, page 16; Herzberg, page 277; Century Bible and the majority of modern translations. The form of the perfect tense (which is the form occurring in the Hebrew text) would normally be translated as “she had sold the field.” This would seem to imply that the land had already been sold and that it would need to be bought back from the actual owner. But in verse 9 Boaz buys the land directly from Naomi. It is not necessary, however, to understand the perfect tense in Hebrew as expressing some past event; it can indicate the fact that a decision to sell and the actual act of selling take place at the same time. See Brockelmann, Hebräische Syntax, par. 41. An additional argument is that this use of the perfect is found in other legal procedures, e.g., in Genesis 23.11. Early translators certainly read a perfect, though they did not rightly understand the meaning: Septuagint hē dedotai; Syriac “Naomi has sold to me.” An appropriate translation in such a case would be “she wants to sell.”

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 .