tribe

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “tribe” in English when referring to the “12 tribes of Israel” is translated in some East African languages, including Taita and Pökoot, with the equivalent of “clan” instead.

Aloo Mojola explains (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 208ff. ) (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):

“A number of Bible translation teams in East Africa have been baffled and intrigued by the use of the term ‘tribe’ in the English translations of the Bible. The usage employed in these translations does not reflect any of the popular meanings associated with the term ‘tribe’ in present-day English. Neither does it reflect popular conceptions of the meaning of this term in East Africa or in other parts of Africa and elsewhere. This raises the question: is the term tribe the best translation of the Hebrew terms shebeth and matteh or the Greek term phyle? What is a tribe anyway? Are the twelve tribes of Israel tribes in the sense this term is currently understood? How can this term be translated in East African languages?

“It is easy to see that there is no consistent definition of the term tribe which applies exclusively and consistently to the communities to which it is currently applied. Why, for example, are the Somali or the Baganda called a tribe, but not the Irish or the Italians? Why do the Yoruba or Hausa qualify, but not the Portuguese or the Russians? Why the Bakongo and the Oromo, but not the Germans or the Scots? Why the Eritreans, but not the French or Dutch-speaking Belgians? Why the Zulu or the Xhosa, but not the South African Boers (Afrikaners) or the South African English? The reason for the current prejudices, it would seem, has nothing to do with language, physical type, common territory, common cultural values, type of political and social organization or even population size. Ingrained prejudices and preconceived ideas about so-called “primitive” peoples have everything to do with it.

“The term ‘tribe’ is used to refer to a universal and world-wide phenomenon of ethnic identification which may draw on any of the following bases: identification in terms of one’s first or dominant language of communication (linguistic), in terms of one’s place of origin (regional), in terms of one’s presumed racial, biological or genetic type (racial), or in terms of one’s ideological or political commitments (ideological), and so on. Communities may choose one or more of these bases as criteria for membership. Any of these may change over time. Moreover forms of ethnic identification are dynamic or in a state of flux, changing in response to new environments and circumstances. Essentially forms of ethnic association reflect a people’s struggle for survival through adaptation to changing times. This is inextricably intertwined with the production and distribution of vital resources, goods and services as well as the distribution of power, class and status in society.

“At the base of any ethnic group is the nuclear family which expands to include the extended family. The extended family consists of more than two families related vertically and horizontally: parents and their offspring, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, and others, extending to more than two generations. A lineage is usually a larger group than an extended family. It includes a number of such families who trace descent through the male or female line to a common ancestor. A clan may be equivalent to or larger than a lineage. Where it is larger than a lineage, it brings together several lineages which may or may not know the precise nature of their relationships, but which nevertheless claim descent from a common ancestor. A clan is best thought of as a kind of sub-ethnic unit whose members have some unifying symbol such as totem, label, or myth. In most cases the clan is used to determine correct marriage lines, but this is not universally so. Above the clan is the ethnic group, usually referred to inconsistently as the tribe. Members of an ethnic group share feelings of belonging to a common group. The basis of ethnic identity is not always derived from a common descent, real or fictional; it may draw on any of the bases mentioned above.

“The Israelites identified themselves as one people sharing a common descent, a common religious and cultural heritage, a common language and history. There is no doubt that they constitute what would nowadays be called an ethnic group, or by some people a tribe. The twelve subunits of the Israelite ethnic group or tribe, (Hebrew shebeth or matteh, or Greek phyle) are clearly equivalent to clans. In fact this is what seems to make sense to most African Bible translators in the light of their understanding of these terms and the biblical account. Referring to a shebeth as a tribe or an ethnic group and to Israel as a collection of twelve tribes creates unnecessary confusion. Translating each of the terms shebeth, matteh, and phyle as clan seems to solve this problem and to be consistent with current usage in African languages.”

See also family / clan / house.

Translation commentary on 1 Esdras 5:1

After this: The demonstrative pronoun this refers to the seven days of celebration mentioned in 1 Esd 4.63. Contemporary English Version translates appropriately “After the celebration.” However, since this phrase begins a new section, it might be even more helpful to say “After the seven days’ celebration” or “After they had celebrated for seven days.”

The heads of fathers’ houses were chosen …: The Greek word for fathers may be rendered “ancestral” (New Revised Standard Version). It is not the ordinary word for “father.” The heads of fathers’ houses refers to men who were recognized as leaders of their clans within the tribes (compare 1 Esd 2.8). It is not clear whether these men were chosen from among other family leaders, or whether they were chosen to be the leaders. We will assume that they were chosen to be the leaders. The author does not tell use who did the choosing, but many translators will have to specify this. Contemporary English Version does so by saying “the Jews chose some of the leaders of their clans.” Another possible model is “the Jews chose certain men to be leaders of family groups.”

To go up is an idiomatic reference for going to Jerusalem (see the comments on 1 Esd 2.5).

According to their tribes, with their wives and sons and daughters, and their menservants and maidservants, and their cattle: All the Jews listed in this section were from the tribes of Judah and Levi, and perhaps from the tribe of Benjamin (see 1 Esd 5.66; 9.5). Their menservants and maidservants refers to the servants belonging to the Jewish families. Good News Bible combines these terms, saying “slaves.” This is possible, but “servants” would be better here. The Greek word for cattle is a general term covering, in this case, camels, horses, mules, and donkeys (see verse 43; see also the comments on 1 Esd 2.6-7). Good News Bible says “animals,” which is a good term. Another possible general expression is “domestic animals.”

Here is an alternative model for this verse:

• After the celebration [or, After they had celebrated for seven days], the Jews chose certain men to be leaders of family groups within the tribes as they all traveled to Jerusalem. These men were to take with them their entire families, as well as their servants and their animals.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on 1-2 Esdras. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.