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.

self-referencing pronoun for king or queen

In Malay, the pronoun beta for the royal “I” (or “my” or “me”) that is used by royals when speaking to people of lower rank, subordinates or commoners to refer to themselves in these verses. This reflects the “language of the court because the monarchy and sultanate in Malaysia are still alive and well. All oral and printed literature (including newspapers and magazines) preserve and glorify the language of the court. Considering that the language of the court is part of the Malaysian language, court language is used sparingly where appropriate, specifically with texts relating to palace life.” (Source: Daud Soesilo in The Bible Translator 2025, p. 263ff.)

complete verse (1 Samuel 22:8)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Samuel 22:8:

  • Kupsabiny: “Isn’t that not what made you plan/conspire against me? But there is no one among you who has told me that my son Jonathan has made friendship with David and they have been working together? Is there no one who is merciful to me because I have not been told that my son Jonathan is encouraging David to ambush me and kill me as he is doing today?” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “So, have you all gotten together and plotted evil deeds against me? Even though my son makes a covenant with the son of Jesse, no one tells me. None of you has any concern for me. Even though my son has incited my servant against me to ambush and kill me, no one says anything to me."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “(Is) that why all of you (plur.) planned evil against me? No one at-all told me that my child/(son) had-made an agreement with David. None of you (plur.)at-all is-concerned/worried for me, for no one told me that my child/(son) incited/stirred-up my servant David to kill me as he is-trying-to today.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “Is that why you have all conspired against me ? None of you told me when my son Jonathan made a solemn agreement with that son of Jesse. None of you feels sorry for me. That son of Jesse was my servant, but now my son is encouraging him to hide in order to ambush me/attack me suddenly, as he is doing today!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

2nd person pronoun with low register (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used anata (あなた) is typically used when the speaker is humbly addressing another person.

In these verses, however, omae (おまえ) is used, a cruder second person pronoun, that Jesus for instance chooses when chiding his disciples. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also first person pronoun with low register and third person pronoun with low register.

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 22:8

There may be some confusion about the wording of the question that begins in verse 7 and ends at the beginning of this verse. In most languages it will be better to make a separate sentence of the last part of the previous verse. The beginning of this verse will then be translated either as a question (Good News Translation) or as an emphatic statement: “But you’re all plotting against me!” (Contemporary English Version).

Discloses to me: literally “uncovers my ears [concerning …]” (see the comments on 9.15). It will be more natural in many cases to say “no one tells me” or “nobody informs me.”

My son … the son of Jesse: the references are to Jonathan and David. At the end of this verse, David is referred to as my servant. Translators should make sure that all of these references are understood by their readers. In some cases this may mean supplying the names.

Makes a league with: literally “about my son cutting [a covenant] with.” The Hebrew is elliptical here, omitting the word “covenant” after the verb “to cut.” See the comments on “make a treaty with” in 11.1-2.

Stirred up: literally “cause to arise.” This may be translated “helped [to] rebel” (Contemporary English Version), “encouraged” (New Century Version), or “incited” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible).

To lie in wait, as at this day: see the same words in verse 13 below. To lie in wait renders a participle of a Hebrew verb meaning “to lie in wait to ambush someone.” The same verb occurs in 15.5. Some possible model translations of this expression are “is waiting to attack me” and “to ambush me” (New Century Version, Contemporary English Version).

The Septuagint says “against me as an enemy” instead of against me, to lie in wait. The two Hebrew words “to lie in wait” and “enemy” differ only in the middle consonant and could easily be confused, since they are similar in shape. The Septuagint is followed by New American Bible (“to be an enemy against me”), New Jerusalem Bible (“to become my enemy”), and Osty-Trinquet.

As at this day is a literal translation. More idiomatic English renderings include “right now” (Good News Translation), “today” (New Revised Standard Version), and “now” (Revised English Bible). Saul is upset not just that David is looking for a chance to kill him, but also that he has already started his plans against Saul and no one had told him. New American Bible makes this clear: “None of you shows sympathy for me or discloses to me that my son has stirred up my servant to be an enemy against me, as is the case today.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .