2So the king said to Joab and the commanders of the army who were with him, “Go through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beer-sheba, and take a census of the people, so that I may know how many there are.”
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.
“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.”
The Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin that is translated as “army” in English is translated in Chichewa as “group of warriors.” (Source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
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.)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 24:2:
Kupsabiny: “Then David called Joab who was (the) leader of soldiers and said to (him) that, ‘Go (plur.) around and count (the) men of the whole of Israel from Dan up there in the north until Beersheba in the south, and come and tell me how many they are.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “So David spoke like this to Joab and the army captains, "Go throughout all Israel from Beersheba city in the south to Dan in the north, count the number of fighting men and tell me. Then I will be able to know how many there are."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “So King David said to Joab and to the commanders of the soldiers, ‘You (plur.) go to all the tribes of Israel, from Dan until Beersheba, and take-a-census of the people, so-that I may-know how many there all.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “So the king said to Joab, the commander of his army, ‘Go with your officers through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan city in the far north to Beersheba town in the far south, and count the people, in order that I may know how many people there are who are able to be soldiers in the army.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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:
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.”
So: this reflects the common Hebrew conjunction, but the transition word shows that what follows was a result of what has just been said in the previous verse. For this reason a number of English versions use a transition word like “So” or “Accordingly” (New American Bible), although some leave it untranslated (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Century Version, New Jerusalem Bible).
It will be more natural in some languages to use the name “David” than to say the king as in Revised Standard Version and the Hebrew original. Others may prefer to combine the two, “King David.”
The difference in meaning between Revised Standard Version (Joab and the commanders of the army) and Good News Translation “Joab, [who was] the commander of his army” reflects a textual problem in which the bulk of the evidence supports the singular of the noun “commander” and thus supports the Good News Translation rendering. Other versions follow those manuscripts of the ancient Greek version that have the plural (Revised English Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible), which is in keeping with the parallel in 1 Chronicles. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, however, recommends the reading “Joab, the commander of the army,” which is adopted by New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Fox, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and New American Standard Bible as well as Good News Translation. In verse 4 the plural form is clearly used, but this is not necessarily proof that the plural should be read here. The most compelling argument in favor of the plural is the fact that the verb number [the people] is plural, which implies that the army commanders are included in the instructions. Good News Translation provides a good model, showing that David spoke to Joab only, but that the instructions are directed toward both Joab and his commanders.
From Dan to Beer-sheba: that is, “from one end of the country to the other” as in Good News Translation. Compare 3.10; 17.11; Judges 20.1; 1 Sam 3.20. Since Good News Translation omits the names of these cities, a better model may be “From Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Or compare Contemporary English Version, which is very similar: “From the town of Dan in the north all the way south to Beersheba.”
The verb translated number [the people] is different from the Hebrew verb translated “number” in verse 1. The verb used in this verse often means “to search out,” but these two verbs in verses 1 and 2 are used here as synonyms.
As often in 1 and 2 Samuel, the Hebrew noun the people is used in the restricted sense of “the soldiers” or “the troops.” New International Version provides a useful model, “… and enroll the fighting men.” As noted in the comments on verse 1, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says here “the men fit for military service.”
The direct quotation of what David said to Joab may also be made indirect if it is more natural to do so in the receptor language. One possibility is to say “David told Joab … to take his officers and go through all the tribes of Israel from one end of the country to the other in order to count the men fit for military service. He said this because he wanted to know how many people there were.”
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.