In Chichewa, Ruth shows enough deference by addressing Boaz as “my lord” (mbuye wanga ‘my master/uncle’), and she does not have to go on to refer to herself as “your maidservant” (which might well be interpreted literally in this context). This also eliminates any possible confusion with her subsequent words: ” . . . though I am not one of your maidservants.”
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 175.
Apart from the unfamiliar food being eaten (“bread” in “wine,” which would seem very much like a reference to the Lord’s Supper to churchgoers today), Boaz’ invitation must not be made to sound too direct, such as “Come here,” or he could be misinterpreted as having an improper motivation. Furthermore, the whole idea of the master preparing a meal for his servants to eat (as a literal translation into Chichewa/Chitonga suggests) appears to be out of place, for that would signify a great reduction in his social status. Besides, he could have expected that they would have already helped themselves to a portion of his harvest, and so why should he “subsidize” them even more?
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 175.
Each of the proposals for rendering the measure “ephah” presents its own difficulties: (a) a transliteration would mean nothing in the receptor language; (b) a local substitute (e.g., mtanga ‘large basket’, Chichewa) would distort the cultural context somewhat; (c) a modern equivalent (e.g., “twenty-five pounds,” Good News Bible) would deny the historical setting; and (d) a combination (e.g., “an ephah, which is about a mtanga full/twenty-five pounds”) is rather too long. In Chichewa/Chitonga the cultural substitute appears to be the best choice here because even the original reference did not involve an exact figure: “about an ephah.” “Barley,” too, is unknown, but the context does suggest at least that it was some type of grain crop, an identification which would be supported by the use of “basket” for “ephah” — as long as the loanword bbaali (Chitonga) is not mistaken as referring to the more common cash crop, ‘burley tobacco.’
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 175f.
It would have been extremely impolite for Ruth, had she been an African, to take back home with her the food which was left over from the meal which she had eaten at Boaz’ farm. That would certainly give the impression that she had a greedy nature. The custom is rather that she leave a little food on her plate to show that she had been satisfied by her host (even if she was really still hungry). This is, in fact, what was suggested by v. 14, “and she had some [food] left over.”—only to be apparently contradicted now in v. 18. Further aspersions on Ruth’s character result from a literal reproduction of the final clause of this verse: “(Ruth) gave (Naomi) what food she had left over after being satisfied” (cp. old Chichewa Bible: mkute ‘food remaining from the night before’). A woman would be considered most selfish if it were discovered that she had filled herself with food first and then had given the left-overs to her mother-in-law. In a traditional African society, greed, or gluttony, is one of the most abhorrent of characteristics, as attested to by many proverbs and folktales.
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 176.
Naomi’s statement that God (Yahweh) cares for both “the living and the dead” corresponds to the Bantu world view, not so much due to the agency of God as mentioned, but because the dead are seemingly put on an equal plane with the living—they comprise but one social community.
It is difficult to render the Hebrew term go’el adequately in Chichewa/Chitonga due to the cultural differences involved. In general, the function of this person in society was to protect the interests of the family and clan: their land, property, freedom, and posterity. Thus he had the obligation to “redeem” (through personal purchase) what had been lost, to avenge the death of kinsmen, and should he happen to be the closest relative to a deceased male of child-bearing age, to marry the widow. The problem is that, not unexpectedly, there is no single term which would cover all of these functions in any Central African language. There would be a “clan representative” (Chichewa: nkhoswe), usually the senior woman’s eldest brother, who does conduct negotiations with his counterparts in matters such as marriage and legal disputes (customary law). But he would never personally be responsible for carrying out acts of revenge or to act as husband in a levirate marriage (not as nkhoswe, that is). The best, then, that can be done in translation is to employ a descriptive phrase which focuses upon the most relevant components of the term’s meaning in this particular context; e.g., Chichewa: “(he is) one of our relatives, the one who has the responsibility of nourishing us” (or: bringing us up, i.e., caring for us).
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 176f.
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!'”
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 178f.
The “city gate” (actually the public square within the main gate leading into the city) was where the local Hebrew elders would meet to discuss and decide the major issues affecting the community. The Chichewa functional correspondent would be the mphala, an open area in the village (often situated near the chiefs house) where similar activities are carried out and more; i.e., the men often eat here and gather also to play games and to work at various trades (e.g., basket making, wood carving, carpentry, etc.) Since the “gate” was so important in Hebrew culture, and hence in biblical literature, it would be advisable to retain the reference to form, if possible, coupling this with an indication of its function, either by a descriptive phrase (e.g., “at the meeting place”) or in combination with the culturally specific term (e.g., “at the mphala by the gate of the city”).
Source: Wendland 1987, p. 181.
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.