Abstract
One of the key steps in interpreting a biblical text is to identify its literary genre correctly. It is important for Bible translators to ensure that the translated text takes account of the genre of the source text and that an appropriate genre from the receptor culture is employed. The book of Ruth is generally recognized as a story. Yet, the translation of Ruth 1.1 into three Akan dialects—Asante, Akuapem, and Fante—does not introduce what follows in the book as a story and so Akan readers may not correctly interpret Ruth as a story. It is against this backdrop that this paper examines storytelling elements in the book of Ruth through a discourse analysis and then offers an alternative Akan translation of Ruth 1.1 that will lead to an improved interpretation and appropriate application of the message of the book.
The book of Ruth as an Akan story
Mburu defines a story as “an artistic arrangement of specific content to communicate some meaning (and/or emotion) through the unfolding of scenes or episodes” (2019, 107). Storytelling refers to the use of voice and gestures to retell a tale to one or more listeners. Akan 1 stories, and African traditional oral stories in general, according to Ogot, are “woven out of the substance of human experience: struggles with the land and the elements, movement and migrations, wars between kingdoms, conflicts over pastures and waterholes, wrestling with the mysteries of existence, and life or death” (2003, 168). Storytelling is meant to entertain, teach moral lessons, and pass on information.
The book of Ruth is one of only two books in the Hebrew Bible named after a woman, the other being Esther. The title comes from the name of one of the main characters. The book does not name its author; Jewish tradition holds that Samuel authored Ruth, though this is impossible to prove and is not widely accepted among scholars (Fruchtenbaum 2007, 271). The uncertainty surrounding the authorship makes the question of the book's origin a subject of debate. The book locates the events in its story in the time of the judges (1.1). Thus it was certainly composed after the period of the judges, possibly “during the time of David about 1000 BC, probably when he was king over the Tribe of Judah only, before he became king over all Israel” (Fruchtenbaum 2007, 271). But there is no scholarly consensus regarding the date of writing of the book. The pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic periods of Israel's history have all been proposed as possible eras for the writing of the book (Lau 2011, 44). This paper agrees with Schipper (2016, 20–22) that no proposed date for the composition of Ruth can be conclusive. 2
Genre
As Smith notes, storytelling was and is a common practice in Oriental societies, and indeed, around the world. Stories were told and retold with details added or omitted from generation to generation (Smith 1956, 830). The genre of the book of Ruth is story, though the kind of story (whether parable, fable, or possibly satire) is uncertain (Roop 2002, 97). It is an expertly crafted piece of literature containing many storytelling techniques. For example, Rebera notes the narrator's use of symmetry as an outstanding storytelling feature, saying, “The first act is balanced by the concluding act and the second act balanced by the third act” (1981, 55).
Setting and characters
As a story, Ruth has a setting that locates it in time and space. The time of Ruth is the era of the judges (1.1). The spatial setting comprises Judah, Moab, and Bethlehem. Another feature of stories present in the book of Ruth is the use of characters in the narrative. The story revolves around three key characters, namely, Naomi, Ruth, and Boaz (Mburu 2019, 128; Schipper 2016, 26). Theologically, the narrator's use of these characters, along with the mention of the birth of Obed, is meant to underline the fact that the story is about David's people (4.17; Roop 2002, 28). Rebera adds Yahweh as the fourth main character of the story (1981, 64). Elimelech and his sons, Mahlon and Chilion, and Obed are not developed into full characters: Elimelech and his sons are presented at the beginning of the story but they die shortly afterwards; Obed is born at the concluding part of the story. Likewise, Akan stories usually present many characters but only a few are developed in the course of the story.
Structure
The story of Ruth, like any other story (and like Akan stories in particular), has logical breaks that divide it into acts or scenes. Smith (1956, 829) identifies six scenes in Ruth's story as follows: The first scene (1.1-18) focuses on Moab, from which Naomi (a native of Bethlehem) decides to go back to her homeland after the demise of her husband and two sons. Ruth (from Moab, and one of Naomi's daughters-in-law) forsakes her own people and joins Naomi on this journey, while Orpah (also from Moab, and Naomi's other daughter-in-law) remains in Moab after Naomi attempts to persuade both daughters-in-law to remain with their people in Moab. The road back home is the context for Ruth's important resolution to join her mother-in-law Naomi in her return to Judah. The second scene (1.19-22) takes place in Bethlehem, to which Naomi has returned. After being greeted by the village women, she names herself Mara (“Bitterness”) because of her bitter experience in Moab. The third scene is the harvest field where Ruth, through her gleaning activity, meets Boaz, who gives her protection and favour (2.1-23). The fourth scene is the threshing floor where Naomi sends Ruth to Boaz to seek protection in marriage (3.1-18). In the fifth scene, at the city gate, Boaz marries Ruth after the nearer kinsman redeemer declines to claim her and resigns his rights to Naomi's land to Boaz (4.1-12). The last scene (4.13-22) 3 concludes the story with an account of the birth of Obed, an event that ends Naomi's bitterness.
It is also possible to divide the story into twelve sections, three in each chapter. Chapters 2 (cf. v. 2) and 3 (cf. vv. 1-5) both have an introductory part where Naomi and Ruth talk about a plan of action. Ruth leaves afterwards, and in each chapter encounters Boaz. They have a dialogue between them and Ruth finally returns, evaluating with Naomi the encounter in both cases. Thematically, Ruth may be divided as follows:
Ch. 1—Migration and return from Moab over some ten years Ch. 2—Harvest field and gleaning over the harvest season Ch. 3—Threshing floor and the search for security, during one night and under cover of darkness Ch. 4—Redemption, marriage and outcome, concluding with a ten-generation genealogy of life and birth in Bethlehem, balancing ten years of death in Moab
4
Figurative language
The narrator's use of figurative language is another feature that makes the story similar to an Akan story. In Ruth 3.9, for example, when Boaz asks, “Who are you?,” Ruth answers, “Spread the corner of your garment over me” (NIV). Ruth's request is a metaphorical way of asking for Boaz's protection (Michael 2015, 160–61). The use of repetition is also found in Ruth, as it is in Akan storytelling. For example, the narrator refers to Ruth as a Moabite in at least six instances (1.4, 22; 2.2, 7; 4.5, 10). Repetition in storytelling helps listeners to remember the story being told and highlights important themes. Another instance of repetition is 3.9, echoing Boaz's prayer (2.12), which speaks of Ruth coming for shelter under the wings of Yahweh. “Wing” and the “corner of the garment” that Ruth refers to in 3.9 are the same Hebrew word (כָּנָף). Thus, Boaz is being challenged to make good on his own prayer. Repetition in biblical texts underscores the oral nature of biblical stories, transmitted from one generation to the other until they were finally written down. The story also uses inclusio—another oral feature—for instance, in the use of the expression “she returned” in 1.6 and 1.22 to fix the upper and lower boundaries of the second episode of the story (Rebera 1981, 255).
Dialogue
Another storytelling feature of Ruth is dialogue—conversation between two people. Dialogue, in the words of Rebera, “provides the evaluation of events, states of affairs and the conduct of the participants” in a story (1981, 216). Some examples of dialogue that the narrator uses to advance the plot of the story include the exchanges between Ruth and Naomi (1.15-17; 2.1-2, 18-23; 3.1-5), Ruth and Boaz (2.3-7), and Boaz and his servants (2.4-7, 15-16). The dialogical approach also reveals the thoughts of the characters involved. Through the use of dialogue the reader becomes aware of Naomi's bitterness and her feeling that God has not been fair to her (Ruth 1). And it is through dialogue that the reader appreciates the joy of the community (cf. 4.14-15). Thus, dialogue is a tool for connecting the reader with the characters in the story. 5
Imagery
African storytelling is characterized by vividness and this is not lacking in the book of Ruth. By telling the story in a vivid manner, the narrator is able to draw the audience deep into the story so that they can easily imagine themselves as part of the story. The African reader gets a vivid picture of the story of Ruth because of familiarity with things mentioned in the story, such as issues of “agony from famine, of separation from family and tribe, of suffering and death, of shame and despair,” among others (Mburu 2019, 129). The African reader is reminded of his or her own experiences as the story progresses. As Mburu observes, for example, the detailed account of the barley and wheat harvest makes it possible to visualize Ruth “walking in the fields, picking up the few stalks left behind by the harvesters” (130).
The following brief Akan story titled “The spider (Ananse) and the wisdom pot” exhibits some of the similarities that Akan stories have with the story of Ruth, as outlined above.
Once upon a time, Kwaku Ananse, the Spider, decided to collect all wisdom, put it in a gourd pot and hang it on a very tall tree. After collecting the wisdom in the pot, Ananse tied it to a string, hung it in front of him, and he set himself to climb the tree. He climbed, and climbed, and climbed—in vain. He strove again, again he made to climb, and climb, and climb—in vain.
Now, his son, Ntikuma, who was standing by, asked the father, “Father what are you trying to do?” Ananse replied, “I want to climb this tree and hang the pot on it.” Ntikuma then said to Ananse, “Oh! Father, would it not have been better if you had turned round the gourd and put it on your back, then doubtless you would have been able to climb?” Ananse considered his son's suggestion and mounted swiftly, Kra! kra! kra! [was the sound of his climbing]; there he goes.
Ananse said to himself, “I collected all wisdom (so I thought) in one place, yet some remained which even I did not perceive, and lo! my child, this still-suckling infant, has shown it to me.” He became disturbed and then broke the pot, casting away its content [wisdom]. That is how wisdom became available to everyone.
A discourse analysis of Ruth 1.1
The term “discourse analysis” refers to the study of written or spoken language in its social context. Smalley (cited in Rebera 1981, 1) defines discourse analysis as “any study which seeks to make explicit the nature of spoken and/or written text, and the process of forming such texts.” It deals with how language is used in real-life situations. The purpose of discourse analysis is to determine how specific syntactic constructions and other features of the text contribute to the overall message and function of a text (Wilt and Wendland 2008, 296). Wilt and Wendland list a number of grammatical features that are important to consider in discourse analysis:
the relationship of clauses and sentences to each other, especially when the transitions are often not clearly marked, as in Hebrew poetry generally; the relationship of dependent clauses to independent clauses within the overall progression of sentence units (that is, distinctions between background and foreground); variations from normal or expected word order, such as syntactic “fronting”; combinations of genitive (or “possessive”) constructions; sequences of prepositional phrases; concentrations of event-nouns or abstract nouns; use of the passive voice, non-finite verbs (participles, infinitives), or verbless constructions; tense/aspect-sequence patterns (that is, prefix and suffix verbs, with or without waw, in Hebrew narratives). וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בִּשְׂדֵי מוֹאָב הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּשְׁנֵי בָנָיו׃ In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the country of Moab, he and his wife and two sons. (NRSV)
The text under consideration (Ruth 1.1) opens the introductory section of the story (1.1-5), which can be outlined as follows: Opening statement: The family, 1.1; A report of death in the family, 1.2-5a; Concluding statement: The woman, 1.5b (Roop 2002, 27). The Hebrew text for Ruth 1.1 is as follows:
The first clause: וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים
The introductory part of the story gives the time and spatial settings of the story: in the days of the judges, in Bethlehem, and in the country of Moab. These backgrounds, together with the reason for the sojourn of a Judahite family (that is, Elimelech's family) in another land (Moab), provide “all the functions of an exposition for a biblical short story, providing a setting for its meaning” (Roop 2002, 26). The first statement in the narration provides the reader with the background—that is, the timeframe and location—of the events of the story. The opening words וַיְהִי בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים, like a typical Akan story, place the story within a general period, rather than give an exact date.
The wayyiqtol at the beginning of v. 1 signals that the narrative discourse opens on the main line of the story. As Holmstedt (2010, 52) asserts, the verb form וַיְהִי is a discourse marker indicating the start of the narrative. It corresponds to the English expression “A long time ago,” “Once upon a time,” “Sometime in the past,” or “It came to pass.” Several biblical texts (including Josh 1.1; Judg 1.1; 2 Sam 1.1; Ezek 1.1) attest to the use of ויהי together with a temporal phrase (as in בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים) to establish the time and/or place of a new narrative unit. In addition, the use of wayyiqtol at the beginning of books (such as in Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 2 Kings, Ezekiel, Jonah, and 2 Chronicles), and at the beginning of lower-level narrative units (like Gen 6.1; 11.1; 14.1; 17.1; 22.1; 26.1; 27.1; 38.1) is not rare in biblical texts. However, it is only in Joshua, Judges, Ezekiel, Esther, and Ruth that the verb ויהי is followed by a time reference, and only in Esther and Ruth that the sequence of וַיְהִי is followed by the phrase בִּימֵי (Campbell 1975, 49). Further, the phrase וַיְהִי בִּימֵי in Esther (as in Gen 14.1; Isa 7.1; and Jer 1.3) is followed by the name of an individual, but in Ruth, the phrase וַיְהִי בִּימֵי is followed by a more general time reference (Campbell 1975, 49). The narrator sets the story in a time signified by an era rather than specific date. One can, however, be sure that the story took place when Judah had a village culture in which family farming was commonly practised (Roop 2002, 27). Such peasant farming was labour-intensive and depended heavily on rainfall patterns. This kind of farming is common in Africa, as it is in the Akan community of Ghana, in particular (Boaheng 2020, 33–34).
These observations underscore the fact that the use of the wayyiqtol form at the beginning of a story is common in Biblical Hebrew. Since the wayyiqtol “is often thought to be at least loosely related to temporal sequence (i.e., following a previous action or event)” (Holmstedt 2010, 53), one might wonder why it is used to begin a book or a major narrative. Holmstedt gives two possible reasons that the wayyiqtol is placed at the beginning of a book or a major narrative. First, it is possible that the books were written in a chronological order such that Joshua continues from Deuteronomy, Judges from Joshua, and so on. Another possibility is that the form וַיְהִי followed by a prepositional phrase is used to set the scene for a narrative and so does not indicate a connection with any preceding event or activity. The arrangement of the Hebrew Scriptures in which Ruth appears in the Writings (at the beginning of the third division of the Hebrew Bible or after Song of Songs or Proverbs) 6 makes the first option unlikely (Holmstedt 2010, 53). The scene-setting use of the wayyiqtol in the present context is more plausible.
The use of the expression בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים (in the days of the judging of the judges), according to Younger (2002, 412), is meant to situate the story in the context of the general chaotic period prior to the time of kingship. The book serves as a link between the pre-monarchic and monarchic periods in ancient Israel's history. Holmstedt (2010, 52) argues that even though the verb היה (be) mostly occurs with either referential subjects or proper nouns (such as, “And Noah was … ” in Gen 5.32), there are cases where היה selects “a null expletive subject” and hence should be translated as “it was” or “there was,” so that the first clause in v. 1 is translated “It was in the days of … ” or “Once, back in the days when … ”
The noun שֹׁפְטִים “judges” derives from the verbal root שׁפט, which has been translated variously as “to arbitrate, pass judgment, administer justice, rule, govern” (HALOT, s.v. שׁפט). Based on this, the nominal form has been rendered with the equivalent of the English “judges” in ancient translations (e.g., LXX: κριτάς; Vulgate: iudices) and as “judges” in many modern English translations (such as KJV, JPS, NIV, NRSV). But as Holmstedt contends, “a שׁופט rarely arbitrates or otherwise acts judicially; instead, the שׁופט leads during military crises and otherwise governs generally” (2010, 54). The “judge” was a person who had authority to rule. It is in this light that Smith asserts that the word שֹׁפְטִים as used in the present context refers not to arbiters of disputes but to leaders or rulers of society (Smith 1956, 832). The primary task of these figures was to give direction to the life of Israel, though they sometimes adjudicated differences between people as well. This view of the שֹׁפְטִים is in harmony with the assertion that “the judges of Israel originate in a town or a tribe during the transition from a tribal to a civil constitution; they are the appointed representatives from the elders of the tribe for ordering the administration of justice and civil affairs concerning a town and the corresponding territory” (HALOT, s.v. שׁפט, cβ, citing Richter). Therefore, the phrase בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים could be rendered “when the leaders ruled.”
The writer does not mention the time of the story (that is, the time of the judges) for nothing. There is a reason for the inclusion of this historical background in the story. According to Duguid (2005, 130), the reference to the period of the judges “is not merely a date-stamp to locate the moment in history in which the characters lived. … It is a theological description of the character of the times in which these events take place.” The period of the judges was an era in which there were no kings and “everyone did as they saw fit” (Judg 21.25, NIV). These times were characterized by many cycles of Israel's rebellion against God, God's judgement on Israel, Israel's repentance and cry to God, and God's forgiveness and redemption of Israel from their predicaments.
The second clause: וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ
After the initial stage-setting expression, the storyteller continues with the clause וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ (there was a famine in the land). Campbell (1975, 50) says the וַיְהִי in this clause is also virtually a story opener (see Gen 12.1; 26.1). Here, the writer uses parataxis in coordinating this clause with the preceding one. Parataxis refers to the placement of clauses or phrases one after another, without using subordinating conjunctions to indicate their relationship. Holmstedt (2010, 55) argues that “since the ו in Hebrew often serves minimally to mark clause boundaries, we must not assume that it always indicates coordination,” though the clauses are grammatically paratactic. Therefore, one has to determine “the syntactic–semantic relationship between two clauses ‘joined’ by a ו” according to the context in which it appears. In the present text, Holmstedt claims that “the ו does nothing more than mark the beginning of the second of the two clauses” (Holmstedt 2010, 55). Perhaps Rebera is right in saying that the second וַיְהִי signifies “the transition from general time setting of the story to the onset of the first episode of the story” (1981, 101).
Stories about famine can be found in other places in Scripture, and in each case, famine signals danger. For example, both Abraham and Isaac became refugees in foreign lands due to famine, and both of them endangered their wives in the process of searching for food (Gen 12.1-20; 26.1-11). In David's day, a famine caused the people to search for someone to blame, someone who had sinned against God enough to bring such a drought (2 Sam 21.1-14). A great famine came upon Israel in the days of Ahab and Elijah that led to the killing of the prophets of Baal because they (the prophets) failed to end the drought (1 Kgs 18.1-40). Finally, famine in Samaria as a result of a Syrian siege led to cannibalism (2 Kgs 6.24-30).
Famine, drought, hunger, and poverty are common African experiences that threaten death, make people refugees, and bring other similar life challenges upon their victims. The famine that came upon the land of Canaan underscores the reality of suffering in human life. There are many African stories that present characters as leaving their hometown to go to other places in search of food. In the African worldview, disasters such as drought, pandemic, and famine are usually interpreted as punishment for evildoings (Mburu 2019, 124).
Such a retribution theology is found in the Israelite worldview as well. In the Pentateuch (Lev 26.18-20; Deut 28.23-24) one finds drought and famine as part of the divine judgements that would come upon the land if Israel failed to keep the law. The Jews of Jesus’ time also held the idea of retribution theology (cf. John 9.2). Ruth 1.1 is not explicit as to whether the famine is viewed as a divine judgement upon the land, the result of improper planning, or a natural catastrophe. However, if Fruchtenbaum's assumption that the events in Ruth occurred during the days of Gideon (Judg 6–8) is correct, then the famine could have been seen as a divine judgement upon the people of Israel who acted according to what pleased them (Fruchtenbaum 2007, 286). Holmstedt (2010, 54) also draws attention to the fact that since the famine did not affect Moab (a region separated from Israel by the Dead Sea), it is very likely that the disaster would have been understood as a divine judgement. While the exact cause of the drought is still debatable, one can be sure that the report of this famine is meant to serve as the reason for the journey of Elimelech's family to Moab (Holmstedt 2010, 54).
Having argued for a possible connection between the devastation of the land by the Midianites in the days of Gideon (Judg 6–8), Fruchtenbaum (2007, 286) concludes that the famine was a severe one, for the following reasons: The fact that Elimelech could not find food in any part of Israel and so had to travel to Moab attests to the severity of the famine. The long duration of the famine (at least ten years; cf. Ruth 1.4, 6) also points to its severity. The seven-year Midianite oppression of Israel, including the destruction of farm produce (cf. Judg 6.3-4), would naturally result in a great famine.
The word אֶרֶץ (“land, earth, country, territory, region”) with the definite article commonly refers to Canaan/Israel; the use of הָאָרֶץ to connote the Cisjordan or Canaan is seen in Judg 18.2 and 1 Sam 14.29. However, it may not be clear to a listener what “land” is intended, or why the storyteller would say “the land” when referring to it for the first time in the narration. It is therefore important that the translator specify which land in order to help readers have a better understanding of the text. The omission of an expression such as “of Israel” or “of Canaan” by the biblical writer may be due to the fact that in the social world in which this text evolved “the land” referred to the land of Canaan. Another reason could be that the writer expected the readers to infer from v. 2 (where Bethlehem and Judah are mentioned) that the land spoken about in v. 1 is Canaan. Whatever the case, one thing is certain: The original audience could easily decipher that “the land” in question is the land of Canaan. This may, however, not be the case in many societies today and so it is better to make it explicit that the land of v. 1 is “the land of Canaan,” or, since Bethlehem in Judah is mentioned specifically, “the land of Judah.”
Third clause: וֵַיּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה לָגוּר בִּשְׂדֵי מוֹאָב הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּשְׁנֵי בָנָיו
In the next clause, the narrator tells the reader how a man named Elimelech and his family reacted to the famine. The particle ו at the beginning of this clause (in the word וֵַיּלֶךְ) is “an important transitional device to show the relationship between the famine mentioned in the first sentence and the decision of Elimelech to go with his family to the country of Moab” (de Waard and Nida 1992, n.p.). This causal relationship can be expressed as “So,” “As a result,” or “Because of this famine” (de Waard and Nida 1992, n.p.; Schipper 2016, 79). Thus, Elimelech's moving to Moab with his family was directly caused by the famine situation in the land of Judah.
In the present text, אִישׁ, which can mean simply an adult male, refers to a man who may be of high rank in society. Elimelech is a family man with two sons who are ready to marry. According to Campbell (1975, 51), the name Elimelech in the Israelite context likely means, “The King (YHWH) is My God,” and is used only in the book of Ruth. The other members of the family are Elimelech's wife Naomi (meaning, “my delight,” “my sweet one,” or “the pleasant one”) and their sons, Chilion (“consumption” or “wasting”) and Mahlon (“sickness”) (Fruchtenbaum 2007, 287). In Hebrew society, as in Akan society, where names in stories give clues to the character of the bearers, the symbolism in these names is suggestive: The family in their weakness must trust YHWH, their King, to provide them with “pleasant things” even in the midst of danger.
It is significant that Elimelech departed Judah with his family. Family relationships are important in Jewish tradition, as they are in African traditional life. Because of a communal worldview, breaking ties with the family attracts punishment from the gods, spirits, or society (Mburu 2019, 123). For this reason, moving in families is important, especially when settling in another land.
Elimelech's family left their place of origin, בֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה “Bethlehem-Judah,” for Moab, to stay there in order not to die of hunger. Fruchtenbaum (2007, 288) gives three reasons that the move to Moab was wrong. In the first place Naomi herself acknowledged the death of her husband and children as divine judgement (1.13). Second, the Moabites were cursed and Israel was forbidden from having friendly relations with them (cf. Deut 23.3-6). Third, if God endorsed their sojourn, he would have declared it explicitly. This misguided move, however, fits well in the days of the judges because Elimelech, like other Israelites, did what was right in his own eyes. Duguid (2005, 132) states that “the ultimate irony had occurred: Bethlehem, whose very name means ‘House of Bread,’ was a place of no food.” Now Bethlehem had become an empty basket. Concerning the Moabites, Duguid writes, “The Moabites had originated out of an incestuous relationship between Lot and his older daughter (Gen 19.30–38); their king Balak had hired Balaam to curse Israel when they came out of Egypt (Num 22–24); their women had been a stumbling block to Israel in the wilderness, seducing them to the worship of false gods (Num 25); and they had recently oppressed the Israelites in the days of Eglon (Judg 3)” (Duguid 2005, 132). One might argue with Fruchtenbaum that Elimelech should have remained in Judah as other Israelites at the time did and survive (or not) with them. However, considering the fact that the lives of his family were at stake, it may not be relevant to the story to see his action as blameworthy.
De Waard and Nida (1992, n.p.) point out that the word לָגוּר means “dwelling in some place for an indefinite amount of time as a newcomer and without original rights.” This means that Elimelech and his family moved to Moab not to stay there permanently but to stay there for some time because of the great famine that had come upon the land of Judah (Fruchtenbaum 2007, 288).
Ruth 1.1 in some Akan translations
There are a number of challenges associated with Bible translation. These challenges are usually related to the translation of cultural idioms, proper names, units of measure, figurative language, stories, and poetic literature, among others. Of interest to the present study is the challenge of translating a biblical story. It is common to find translators translating stories so literally that they tend to ignore the storytelling techniques of the receptor community in their work. Every language has special elements for communication; there are discourse markers peculiar to each language. The way a person begins a narration in one language may differ from how another person will begin the same story in another language. It is therefore important for Bible translators to adhere to the principles of storytelling in the receptor culture when translating biblical stories. Most Akan translations of Ruth 1.1 (as will be demonstrated shortly) seem not to have adopted the natural way of storytelling among the Akan community. It is against this backdrop that the following analysis of the translation of Ruth 1.1 in some major Akan translations points out the challenges with these translations and then proposes an alternative rendering of this verse. This study considers the translation of Ruth 1.1 into the Fante, Akuapem, and Asante dialects (the verse remained unchanged in the revisions listed for each translation).
Asante (1964; 2012; 2018):
Na nna a atemmufoɔ no bu atεn no mu no, εkɔm baa asase no so. Na ɔbarima bi a ɔfiri Betlehem a εwɔ Yuda kɔɔ sε ɔrekɔtena Moab asase so ayε hɔ hɔhoɔ, ɔno ne ne yere ne ne mmammarima baanu.
In the days that judges judged, famine came upon the land. And a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to Moab to settle there as a foreigner, he went with his wife and two sons.
Akuapem (1964; 2012):
Akannifo no bere so no, ɔkɔm baa Yuda asaase so. Na ɔbarima bi a ofi Betlehem a εwɔ Yuda kɔe sε ɔkɔtena Moab asaase so ayε hɔ hɔho, ɔno ne ne yere ne ne mmammarima baanu.
In the days of the Leaders, famine came upon the land of Judah. And a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to Moab to settle there as a foreigner, he went with his wife and two sons.
Fante (1974; 2019):
Na ɔbaa dε nda no mu no a atsεmbuafo buu atsεm no, ɔkɔm baa asaase no do. Na ɔbarimba bi a ofi Beth-lehem-judah otutui kεtsenaa Moab man mu, ɔnoara, na ne yer, na ne mbabanyin beenu.
And it came to pass that in the days that judges judged, famine came upon the land. And a man from Bethlehem in Judah went to Moab to settle there, he went with his wife and two sons.
The scene-setting at the beginning of the story of Ruth is an important element not only in telling a Hebrew story but also in telling an African story. Translators should use expressions that will signal to their readers that a story is about to be told. In other words, mother-tongue translators need to begin with discourse markers indicating the start of a story. Both the Asante and Akuapem translations omit translating the expression וַיְהִי (“once upon a time”) and hence fail to provide a signal that the whole passage is a story. Perhaps the Asante and Akuapem translators did not carry out an adequate background study of the book to appreciate it as an Akan story. The Fante renders the expression as Na ɔbaa dε “And it came to pass,” which is an acceptable way of beginning a story.
Earlier, it was suggested that the phrase בִּימֵי שְׁפֹט הַשֹּׁפְטִים should not be rendered “when judges judged” but “when the leaders ruled.” These leaders were not kings in the strict sense of the word, though they performed functions similar to those of kings (see discussion above). These leaders were also not like contemporary African political leaders who were voted into power. A footnote to this effect is needed in Akan Bibles. Nor were they chosen by royal lineage, as in the case of a king. Thus שׁוֹפְטִים should not be rendered with a word that means “kings.” If a suitable alternative to “judges” is not available, there should be a footnote explaining that the “judges” were not primarily arbitrators, but people who had the authority to rule. The Asante and Fante translations of שׁוֹפְטִים as atemmufoɔ “judges” and atsεmbuafo “judges,” respectively, need to be revised along the lines of the Akuapem Akannifo “leaders.”
Again, the translations of the Hebrew word בָּאָרֶץ as asase no so or asaase no do (both meaning “upon the land”) for Asante and Fante, respectively, make it difficult for the reader to identify what land is referred to in this verse. The importance ancient Israel attached to its land would definitely mean that Jewish readers would understand it is the land of Canaan that the story refers to; this, however, is not the case for non-Jewish readers like the Akan. This is the reason this paper calls for explication in Akan translations with regards to this verse. It is a common practice in Akan (as in English) to qualify a noun with the definite article only after it has been introduced into a conversation. The present Asante and Fante renderings allow readers to assume any land for the land spoken about in this verse. Even though the land referred to in v. 1 can be known explicitly after reading v. 2, these renderings fail the standard of normal use of the article. The Akuapem version, Yuda asaase so “in the land of Judah” is more readily understood. 7
Next to be considered is the translation of אִישׁ in the versions under consideration. Earlier it was noted that אִישׁ refers to an adult male. All the words employed by the Asante, Akuapem, and Fante Bibles (including ɔbarima and ɔbarimba) are generic terms for a male human being, whether a child or an adult. In an interview with a Fante linguist, the Rev. Isaac Nyanful, he indicated that ɔbarimba has almost faded from everyday Fante language; yet, if used, ɔbarimba may refer to an adult male. He indicated that the Fante word for a male human being is banyin. Two Ashantis (in an interview) opined that ɔbarima is a term for a male and does not indicate whether the person is young or old. They both agreed that to talk of an adult male one may use papa (“father” or “man”) or ɔpanyin. From the word wanyin (meaning “he or she is grown”), ɔpanyin means “an old person, an adult” rather than a child (Cole, Manuh, and Miescher 2007, 255). It also means a high-ranking person (“a gentleman, respectable man, person of rank”) or a person of authority, such as a chief. The following quote is noteworthy: An ɔpanyin's position is not permanent. People recognized as ɔpanyin must continue to prove their worthiness. Conduct, reputation, and the ability to speak well are considered decisive. People lose respect for misbehaving elders. Every occupant of a stool (the symbolic representation of a chiefly office) is ex officio an ɔpanyin. His or her misconduct reduces the office's honor and might lead to destoolment. (Cole, Manuh, and Miescher 2007, 255)
While ɔpanyin may refer to an adult person (male or female) there is a convention that when used alone without an adjective such as papa panyin (an adult man) or maame panyin (an adult woman), ɔpanyin refers to “an adult male person.”
Obviously, one has to choose between papa and ɔpanyin in translating אִישׁ. In the present text ɔpanyin (“old man” or “respectable man”) seems more appropriate, though papa bi “a certain man” is allowable. Elimelech is an ɔpanyin not only because of his age but also because he is a married man who has fathered at least two sons; he is therefore a respectable person. The use of ɔpanyin in the sense of a person of authority is found 2 John 1, where it translates presbyteros (a person of authority within the church). The high status of John the Apostle in the early church qualifies him to be referred to as ɔpanyin. The use of ɔpanyin in the present text is preferred, though as noted earlier, papa can also be used.
The last thing to look at is the translation of הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּשְׁנֵי בָנָיו (lit. “he and his wife and his two sons”), which is translated into Asante and Akuapem as ɔno ne ne yere ne ne mmammarima baanu “he and his wife and his two sons,” and into Fante as ɔnoara, na ne yer, na ne mbabanyin beenu “he [emphatic] and his wife and his two sons.” Though these translations are literally correct, they seem to say that the two sons were Elimelech's sons but not Naomi's. This, however, is not the case in the story. That they were Naomi's sons is evident in 1.3: “But Elimelech, the husband of Naomi, died, and she was left with her two sons” (RSV, emphasis mine). Since Mahlon and Chilion belonged to both Elimelech and Naomi, one would have to say “and their two sons.” The Akan translations would be something like ɔno ne ne yere ne wɔn mmammarima baanu “he and his wife and their two sons” for both Asante and Akuapem and ɔnoara, na ne yer, na hɔn mbabanyin beenu “he [emphatic] and his wife and their two sons” for Fante.
Proposed rendering of Ruth 1.1 in these three Akan dialects
Putting the study together, the following proposed translations emerge.
Asante-Twi:
Mmerε tenten bi a atwam, Akannifoɔ no berε so no, εkɔm baa Yuda asase so. Yei nti, ɔpanin bi a ɔfiri Betlehem a εwɔ Yuda ne ne yere ne wɔn mmammarima baanu tu kɔtenaa Moab asase so sε ahɔhoɔ.
Long ago, in the time of the Leaders, famine came upon the land of Judah. Because of this, a certain man, from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and their children went to Moab to settle there as a foreigners.
Akuapem-Twi:
Mmerε tenten bi a atwam, Akannifo no bere so no, ɔkɔm baa Yuda asaase so. Yei nti, ɔpanyin bi a ofiri Betlehem a εwɔ Yuda ne ne yere ne wɔn mmammarima baanu tu kɔtenaa Moab asase so sε ahɔhoɔ.
Long ago, in the time of the Leaders, famine came upon the land of Judah. Because of this, a certain man, from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and their children went to Moab to settle there as a foreigners.
Fante:
Mber tsentsen bi a etwam, Akandzifo no abere do no, ɔkɔm baa Yuda asaase do. Dεm ntsi ɔpanyin bi a ofi Betlehem a εwɔ Yuda na ne yer na hɔn mbabanyin beenu tutui kεtsenaa Moab man mu dε ahoho.
Long ago, in the time of the Leaders, famine came upon the land of Judah. Because of this, a certain man, from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and their children went to Moab to settle there as a foreigners.
Conclusion
This study has shown how the book of Ruth can be compared to an African story. Some major shortfalls of the Akan rendering of Ruth 1.1 have been pointed out and an alternative translation has been offered with the potential of helping Akan readers to appreciate the message of the book and then apply its message appropriately. There is no way a brief work of this nature could address all the issues. This study therefore serves as a foundation upon which more research can be conducted to enhance mother-tongue translation and theologizing, not only among the Akan but among other ethnic groups as well.