Ruth

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)


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

In Swiss-German Sign Language it is translated with a sign that depicts Ruth collecting ears of grain, referring to Ruth 2:2 and following.


“Ruth” in Swiss-German Sign Language, source: DSGS-Lexikon biblischer Begriffe , © CGG Schweiz

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

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 4:15: 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 4:5

A particle such as Very well to introduce the direct discourse in verse 5 is particularly important, not only to mark the sequence of events, but to show at this point an abrupt shift in the argumentation. In some languages it might be appropriate to have a particle before Boaz said, which would suggest something like “then to everyone’s surprise” or “but then.” This may be very useful in marking the complete change in Boaz’s presentation of the issue.

Then you are also buying Ruth, the Moabite widow is in Hebrew literally “you are also acquiring (from) Ruth the Moabitess, With qere one should read qanitah, and with the Old Latin, Syriac, and Vulgate one should read weʾet instead of meʾet, a scribal error probably due to dittography. the dead man’s (wife).” Some English translations prefer to retain the verb “buying,” so that they render “you are also buying Ruth” (Revised Standard Version, Moffatt, and Smith-Goodspeed). It is the same Hebrew verb used in the expression buy the field, but this Hebrew verb does not mean specifically “buy” in both contexts, for in Hebrew societies one did not “buy” a wife. The appropriate meaning of this verb in the second context is “to acquire.” In fact, it could be argued that the diagnostic component of “commercial operation” is absent from the Hebrew root in all its occurrences in chapter 4, because the owner is and remains Elimelech’s clan, to which Boaz also belongs. In that case one should also speak of “acquiring the field.” Cf. Theo R. Schneider, “Translating Ruth 4.1-10 among the Tsonga people,” The Bible Translator 33 (1982):301-309.

Essentially the nearest relative had two distinct responsibilities: one was to preserve the estate of Elimelech (this would be done by buying the field in order to keep it in the family), and the other was to acquire the widow of Elimelech’s son Mahlon. L. Köhler (“Ruth,” Schweizerische Theologische Zeitschrift 37, 1920) wants to omit the whole phrase “and from Ruth the Moabitess,” arguing that the dead man concerned is Elimelech, and the widow who has to be married is Naomi. In this he is followed by Haller. Already Volz (TLZ 26, 1901, cols. 348-349) was of the opinion that in the original form of the story Naomi married Boaz. However, this view is unacceptable. Even Joüon (op. cit., page 10) may not be right in stating that Ruth replaced Naomi legally. Finally, the nearest relative to Elimelech was also the nearest relative to Mahlon, and the levirate marriage could only make sense in relation to the younger of the two widows.

For the Hebrew phrase “the dead man’s (wife)” the focus is upon the wife, and therefore “widow” is an appropriate translation, leaving “the dead man’s” as implicit information.

When the Hebrew text says “you are also acquiring Ruth,” this is equivalent to saying “you must marry Ruth.” This aspect of the obligation is expressed in Good News Translation simply as then you are also buying Ruth, the Moabite widow.

So that the field will stay in the dead man’s family is in Hebrew literally “in order to raise the name of the dead to his inheritance.” Basically there are two ideas combined in this Hebrew expression. (1) The aim of the levirate marriage was “to raise a child (son) for the dead.” In this way a man was given a kind of continuing life through his sons. (2) The name of the dead is restored to his inheritance through the fact that the property becomes the property of the child of the widow who is married, rather than becoming the personal asset of the one who acquires the property on behalf of the dead husband. In other words, the property would belong not to the closest relative, but to the son of the widow. Furthermore, the son would be regarded as the son of the widow’s deceased husband rather than as the son of the person who had redeemed the property and married the widow. By fulfilling the responsibility of the closest kin, a person would in essence be diminishing his own property right and estate, and thus depriving his other children of a portion of their inheritance.

In order to make all of these aspects quite explicit, one could translate this passage as “you must also marry Ruth, the Moabite widow, and you must raise a child (a son) by her so that the field will stay in the dead man’s family.”

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 .