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.”

cardinal directions

The cardinal directions “east” and “west” are easy to translate into Maan here since the language uses “where the sun comes up” and “where the sun goes down.” For “north” the translator had “facing toward the sun rising to the left,” and for “south” she had “facing toward the sun rising to the right.” So the listener had to think hard before knowing what direction was in view when translating “to the north and south, to the east and west.” So, in case all four directions are mentioned, it was shortened by saying simply “all directions.” (Source: Don Slager) Likewise, Yakan has “from the four corners of the earth” (source: Yakan back-translation) or Western Bukidnon Manobo “from the four directions here on the earth” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo back-translation).

Kankanaey is “from the coming-out and the going-away of the sun and the north and the south” (source: Kankanaey back-translation), Northern Emberá “from where the sun comes up, from where it falls, from the looking [left] hand, from the real [right] hand” (source: Charles Mortensen), Amele “from the direction of the sun going up, from the direction of the sun going down, from the north and from the south” (source: John Roberts), Ejamat “look up to see the side where the sun comes from, and the side where it sets, and look on your right side, and on your left” (source: David Frank in this blog post).

In Lamba, only umutulesuŵa, “where the sun rises” and imbonsi, “where the sun sets” were available as cardinal directions that were not tied to the local area of language speakers (“north” is kumausi — “to the Aushi country” — and “south” kumalenje — “to the Lenje country”). So “north” and “south” were introduced as loanwords, nofu and saufu respectively. The whole phrase is kunofu nakusaufu nakumutulesuŵa nakumbonsi. (Source C. M. Doke in The Bible Translator 1958, p. 57ff.)

“West” is translated in Tzeltal as “where the sun pours-out” and in Kele as “down-river” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel).

In Morelos Nahuatl, “north” is translated as “from above” and “south” as “from below.” (Source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)

The Hebrew text that gives instructions where to place items in the tabernacle with the help of cardinal directions (north and south) had to be approached in the Bambam translation specific to spacial concepts of that culture.

Phil Campbell explains: “There are no words in Bambam for north and south. In Exodus 26:35, God instructs that the table is to be placed on the north side and the lamp on the south side inside the tabernacle. The team wants to use right and left to tell where the lamp and table are located. In many languages we would say that the table is on the right and the lampstand is on the left based on the view of someone entering the tabernacle. However, that is not how Bambam people view it. They view the placement of things and rooms in a building according to the orientation of someone standing inside the building facing the front of the building. So that means the table is on the left side and the lampstand is on the right side.”

See also cardinal directions / left and right.

Translation commentary on Ezekiel 48:1 - 48:7

God started speaking at verse 13 in chapter 47 and continues until the end of this chapter. Most translations indicate that he is still speaking here, either by beginning this subunit with quotation marks (so Revised Standard Version) or with a quote frame (so Contemporary English Version with “The LORD said”). Translators will need to decide how best to make this clear in their language.

These are the names of the tribes: This clause introduces the list of territory that God will give to the twelve tribes. Although he just mentions the names of the tribes, translators may find it useful to expand this phrase to make the meaning clear by rendering this clause as “Here is the list of the tribes of Israel and the territory each is to receive” (New Living Translation). The list begins with a summary of the northern border of the land, but beginning at the northern border is part of the list, not part of the summary of the border. It is best to attach this phrase to the previous clause by saying “This is the list of the territory each tribe of Israel will receive, starting from the north.”

From the sea by way of Hethlon to the entrance of Hamath, as far as Hazar-enon (which is on the northern border of Damascus over against Hamath): God described the northern border of the country in 47.15-17 (see the comments there). Here he summarizes what he said there, but some of the details are different. Revised Standard Version changes the Hebrew to read from the sea by way of Hethlon, so that it is exactly the same as 47.17 (so also Good News Translation, Moffatt). The Hebrew actually reads “beside the way of Hethlon” (New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version). A good rendering here is “Its boundary line follows the Hethlon road” (New Living Translation; similarly New International Version, New International Reader’s Version). Which is on the northern border of Damascus over against Hamath shortens the description in 47.17, which makes explicit that the border runs north of Damascus and south of Hamath. Here the meaning is the same, but God simply says that the border is over against Hamath, that is, “next to [the territory of] Hamath” (New International Version; compare Good News Translation “to the boundary between the kingdoms of Damascus and Hamath”). Translators may prefer to state the details here fully (as in 47.17) for the sake of clarity. A model that does this is “The boundary line will go east through the town of Hethlon to the Hamath Pass and go as far as the town of Hazar-enon, so that Damascus is to the south and Hamath is to the north.”

And extending from the east side to the west, Dan, one portion: The Hebrew here is literally, “and these will belong to him: the east side [and] the west [side], Dan, one [portion]” (similarly Hebrew Old Testament Text Project), but Revised Standard Version has captured the sense of the difficult Hebrew construction here (compare New Living Translation “Dan’s territory extends all the way across the land of Israel from east to west”). After describing the section of land in verse 1, God names which tribe it will belong to. The northernmost section of land will belong to the tribe of Dan. In verses 2-7 the sections of land are allocated to Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, and Judah respectively. These are seven of the twelve tribes of Israel; the other five are listed in verses 23-27. The tribes were named after the sons of Jacob, except that Levi’s clan did not receive land and Joseph’s clan was divided into two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim (see the comments on 47.13). Each tribe will receive one share of land.

Adjoining the territory of means the land of the next tribe will “border” (New International Version, New International Reader’s Version) the territory of the previously mentioned tribe. The territory of each tribe will extend from the east side to the west, that is, right across the country. Some translations make explicit that a subsequent tribe’s territory is south of the previous one; for example, New Living Translation begins verse 2 with “Asher’s territory lies south of Dan’s,” and New Century Version has “South of Dan’s border, Asher will have one share.” God describes the allocation of the land to each tribe in exactly the same way.

Translators have different ways of listing the tribes. Good News Translation combines verses 1-7 and simply lists the names in order (compare Contemporary English Version for verses 1b-7, which says “The tribes will receive their share of land in the following order, from north to south: Dan, Asher, Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben, and Judah”). Other translations do not combine verses 2-7, but bring the name of each tribe to the beginning of each of these verses; for example, New International Reader’s Version has “2 Dan will receive one share of land … 3 Asher will receive one share…” (similarly New International Version, Complete Jewish Bible). Still others go through the whole list in full, repeating all the material (so Revised Standard Version). Translators may choose whatever method of listing the allocation of land to the tribes is most natural in their own language. A model that combines verses 2b-7 is:

• The territory for each tribe will extend all the way across the country from east to west. South of Dan’s territory will be Asher’s, and then continuing south will be the territories of Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Judah.

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 .