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.

Levi

The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is transliterated as “Levi” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with a sign that signifies a menorah referring to the temple service of the tribe of the Levites. The same sign is also used for the tribe. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Levi” or “Levite” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

See also Levite, Levi and the Tribe of Levi .

Aaron

The name that is transliterated as “Aaron” in English is translated in Catalan Sign Language and Spanish Sign Language as “stones on chest plate” (according to Exodus 28:15-30) (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. )


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

In Colombian Sign Language, Honduras Sign Language, and American Sign Language, the chest plate is outlined (in ASL it is outlined using the letter “A”):


“Aaron” in ASL (source )

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

See also Moses, more information on Aaron , and this lectionary in The Christian Century .

king

Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
  • Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))

Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:

“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

See also king (Japanese honorifics).

Translation commentary on 2 Esdras 1:1 - 1:3

The second book of the prophet Ezra may be rendered “This is the second book of the prophet Ezra (Good News Bible)” or “… written by the prophet Ezra.” There is no way to tell what the author has in mind for the first book of Ezra. It may be the book of Ezra in the Old Testament. There is certainly no evident connection of this book with either the book of Ezra or the book of 1 Esdras. A prophet not only prophesied events that would happen in the future, but also counseled his people about how they should deal with daily events (see the comments on 1 Esd 1.20). Some translators will wish to translate prophet as “God’s messenger.” The name Ezra is probably a shortened form of Azariah, meaning “the LORD has helped.” The Greek form of this name is the origin of the name “Esdras.”

The son of Seraiah, son of Azariah, son of Hilkiah, son of Shallum, son of Zadok, son of Ahitub, son of Ahijah, son of Phinehas, son of Eli, son of Amariah, son of Azariah, son of Meraioth, son of Arna, son of Uzzi, son of Borith, son of Abishua, son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi: The family line of Ezra is also found in Ezra 7.1-5 and in 1 Esd 8.1-2. The genealogy here differs somewhat from those. The three genealogies are exactly the same from Ezra through Ahitub, and again from Abishua through Aaron. The names Ahijah, Phinehas, and Eli appear only in 2 Esdras. Amariah appears in all three books, but Azariah and Meraioth are missing from 1 Esdras, In place of Arna the Ezra genealogy has “Zerahiah”; there is no corresponding name in 1 Esdras. The name Uzzi is in all three lists. In place of Borith both Ezra and 1 Esdras have “Bukki.” We recommend that translators use the same forms of these names used in the book of Ezra where possible, Arna and Borith are exceptions. Levi was one of the twelve tribes of Israel, named for one of the sons of Jacob. Members of the tribe of Levi were priests, so the writer here is identifying Ezra as a legitimate priest. Of the tribe of Levi may be rendered “a member of the tribe of Levi.” Some cultures have special literary forms or a special genre for tracing ancestry. Where they exist, the special rules of this genre should be followed in presenting this genealogy. As in the Latin text, it may be traced from Ezra to his father, grandfather and great-grandfather back to Aaron. Alternatively, the order of presentation may be reversed to trace Ezra’s ancestors from Aaron in descending order.

Who was a captive in the country of the Medes in the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians: The relative pronoun who refers back to the prophet Ezra, not to Levi. The word captive indicates that Ezra was among the Jews exiled by the Babylonians. The Medes were the people of Media, which was a province of the Persian Empire (see the comments on 1 Esd 3.1-2). There were two Persian emperors named Artaxerxes, and it is not clear here which is meant. Artaxerxes I ruled from 465 to 424 B.C. (see 1 Esd 2.16). Artaxerxes II ruled from 405 to 359 B.C. Most likely the former emperor is meant. For king of the Persians, see the comments on 1 Esd 1.57 and 2.1.

The Latin text has only one sentence for verses 1-3 (so also Revised Standard Version), but many languages will prefer several sentences here (so Good News Bible, Contemporary English Version). In verse 4 Ezra begins speaking in the first person singular, so some translators may wish to bring the first person forward into this material; for example, Contemporary English Version renders these verses as follows:

• 1-3 I am Ezra the prophet, the son of Seraiah and the grandson of Azariah. I belong to the Levi tribe, because my ancestors go all the way back to Aaron and include Hilkiah, Shallum, Zadok, Ahitub, Ahijah, Phinehas, Eli, Amariah, Azariah, Meraimoth, Arna, Uzzi, Borith, Abishua, Phinehas, and Eleazar son of Aaron.
I wrote this second book during the rule of King Artaxerxes of Persia, while I was a prisoner in Media Province.

Here is another model:

• 1-3 This is the second book of [or, written by] the prophet Ezra, who was a captive in Media at the time when Artaxerxes was king of Persia. Ezra was a Levite [or, member of the tribe of Levi], and was descended from Seraiah, Azariah, Hilkiah, Shallum, Zadok, Ahitub, Ahijah, Phinehas, Eli, Amariah, Azariah, Meraioth, Arna, Uzzi, Borith, Abishua, Phinehas, Eleazar, and Aaron.

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.