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.

complete verse (Ezekiel 45:8)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezekiel 45:8:

  • Kupsabiny: “This portion belongs to the king in the land of Israel so that he does not suppress other people. But leave the other land to belong to the Israelites.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “This land will-become the portion of the leader of Israel.
    ‘My leaders will- no-longer -oppress my people. They will-allow the people of Israel to possess the land which was-given to them according to their tribe.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “That land will be the land in Israel that belongs to the king. So, because the kings will have their own land, they will no longer need to oppress my people and steal land from them. They will assign the remaining parts of the land to the people, giving a part to each tribe.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

1st person pronoun referring to God (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 first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

See also pronoun for “God”.

Translation commentary on Ezekiel 45:7 - 45:8

Good News Translation‘s heading here (“Land for the Prince”) is unnecessary, since verses 7-8a simply continue the report about the allocation of the land. These verses describe the land for Israel’s king.

And to the prince shall belong the land on both sides of the holy district and the property of the city, alongside the holy district and the property of the city, on the west and on the east: The prince refers to the king of Israel (see the comments on 44.3). The king will have two pieces of land, one on the west side and the other on the east side, of the areas of land described in verses 1-6. The Hebrew text repeats the holy district and the property of the city. If this repetition is unnatural, it may be omitted (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version).

Corresponding in length to one of the tribal portions, and extending from the western to the eastern boundary of the land: The king’s land will extend to the western and eastern borders of the land, just as the land to be allocated to each of the tribes will extend to the western and eastern borders of the land (see the discussion on how the land will be allocated to the tribes in 48.1-7, 23-29). The king’s tracts of land will extend to the west as far as “the Mediterranean Sea” (Good News Translation), and to the east as far as “the eastern border of the country” (Good News Translation).

It is to be his property in Israel: Just as the other three sections of land described in verses 1-6 will belong to the priests, the Levites and the whole nation of Israel, so these two sections will belong to the king of Israel.

New Century Version provides a helpful model for verses 7-8a as follows:

• 7 “‘The ruler will have land on both sides of the holy area and the city. On the west side of the holy area, his land will reach to the Mediterranean Sea. On the east side of the holy area, his land will reach to the eastern border. It will be as long as the land given to each tribe. 8 Only this land will be the ruler’s property in Israel.

A model that combines verses 7-8a is:

• The king [or, ruler] of Israel will have land on both sides of the holy area and the property of the city, one on the west and one on the east. This property will be the same length as the portions of the land that each tribe will have, extending to the eastern and the western borders of the land.

And my princes shall no more oppress my people: My princes refers to “every ruler of Israel” (Contemporary English Version), anyone who is king of God’s people (see Ezek 45.7). Contemporary English Version follows one Hebrew manuscript and the Septuagint by adding “of Israel.” My princes is the better reading, but translators may add “of Israel” for clarity. The Hebrew word for oppress refers to exploiting people, defrauding and robbing them (see the comments on 18.7). It refers to a person in power using that power for his own benefit and advantage. My people refers to God’s people, that is, the nation of Israel. It is acceptable to turn this clause into a positive statement; for example, Contemporary English Version has “they will always be fair to my people.”

But they shall let the house of Israel have the land according to their tribes: This clause could have the two following meanings:

1. They “will let the rest of the country belong to the tribes of Israel” (Good News Translation; similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), that is, the kings will take only the two portions of land described in verse 7 and will have no claim on the rest of the country. This contrasts with many ancient countries where the king owned all the land.
2. They “will let them live peacefully in the land given to their tribes” (Contemporary English Version), that is, the kings will not try to take away the land that belongs to others. This is the better interpretation.

Quoted with permission from Gross, Carl & Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Ezekiel. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .